|
|
February 7, 2008Romney: Brokered or Third Party?A while back, my husband and I were taking a road trip and using a Tom-Tom to help us get there. We made a discovery; instrumentation and other voices are too easy to rely on. Before you know it, you’ve stopped listening to your guts and your instincts and come to lean too fully on the authoritative voice telling you what to do because, 98.5 percent of the time, the voice is right. In our case, Tom-Tom was telling us to proceed ahead, but my eyes and guts were saying, “that sign says New York, we want to turn here!” My husband, who is a very smart guy, had become comfortable trusting the instrument, and he said, “no, we stay straight.” The point is - although the Tom-Tom is remarkable, when it goes wrong that 1.5 percent of the time, you have to be able to recognize it and trust your gut. Lean too heavily on “other” voices and you lose that ability. And when you lose your own instinct, your own “inner voice,” then you get terribly, terribly lost. Stranded. Many voters on the far-right are feeling stranded in the middle of an unknown and rather unfriendly-looking neighborhood, and they are fretting about where to go next. (I am not really sure what to call these people. When I use the term “far right” they are offended, but until something better comes along, “far right” they be.) No one wants to believe that, with all those directions one has taken, and with the Tom-Tom saying “you’re on the right road, keep turning right,” one has ended up in a swamp, with gators threatening from all sides. But that does seem to be about the gist of it. For the last four years, many of the “true conservatives” have been doing a lot of complaining about President Bush and the “RINOS” and so forth, but outside of bellyaching, they’ve done nothing. They’ve known since ‘04 that Bush would have no veep successor, but they didn’t bother seeking out and grooming an acceptable candidate. Offered many choices this past year, none were enough to move them to monetary and clear-throated support. So yes, they’re stranded, and waiting for Tom-Tom to tell them what to do next. The wait may be over. So, Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign. For the drama queens who can’t gasp enough, it will be yet another reason to scream and cry. Some will see this as happy reconciliation. For others it is a moment to raise an eyebrow and wonder whether this is a move to encourage a brokered convention or if it is the “break” that some have been waiting for. Romney said:
That might be considered - by some - bright red meat. Ed Morrissey notes that Romney is speaking passionately about conservatism:
I recall listening to the Limbaugh program a while back - before Rudy dropped out - and it seemed to be an afternoon of women calling up gushing about Romney. They were ecstatic about his family, his manner with his wife, etc. Rush seemed very interested in their comments and seemed to want to hear from more of them. Shortly after that, Limbaugh went on his non-stop anti-McCain-three-hours-a-day tirade. He never actually said much about Romney. I described him in another post as “curiously silent” on Mitt, comparatively. A game is afoot. I’ve been telling you for a while, now, to stop engaging in emotionalism, to sit back and just watch. I’ve been telling you that everything is in flux, and constantly changing, and that anything can happen. Some are seeing Romney’s move today as “good for the GOP.” Others will wonder if Romney has not just very slyly provoked positive coverage and universal approval and admiration - all those good feelings - as a compare and contrast against the ill-will toward McCain. And if he is looking for a brokered convention, which I think he is, he now gets to rest up while McCain exhausts himself. At the convention he will look tanned, ready and rested, McCain will look old and worn out. This is just getting interesting. He is only suspending his candidacy. The brokered convention is not impossible, and I am certain many are now hanging their hopes upon it. Or…are we about to see that third party idea - a conservative break with the GOP - come about? Will Romney be the boy? He has very quickly and rather suddenly moved “hard right.” Will those who need “hard right” follow, even if he’s new at it? If so, can a third party get the South (which let’s face if, if they wanted Mitt would have voted for him on Super Tuesday) to go pull a lever for him? Will they try to float someone else? And what will the effect be? To win, a third party would have to be able to attract most of the GOP and some Independents. Not likely in ‘08, more possible in ‘12…or ‘16. If a new “Conservative Party” candidate can’t win this year, but can siphon off just enough votes to kill a (presumed) McCain presidency, thereby acting in persona Perot to elect either Hillary or Obama, it will be partly responsible for the 3-6 SCOTUS Justices who will be seated by either Democrat before 2012 and will remain for decades. That would be a bad beginning for such a party. And when we have troops fighting and dying in the Middle East, is it “honorable” and “principled” to abandon them to a Dem CIC who doesn’t believe in their mission and would render their efforts meaningless? I don’t believe the “far right” will do that. So what I’m thinking is they’ll still try for the brokered convention I predicted after Florida. Expect the ultra-demonization of pro-life, pro-troop John McCain, First Assistant to Satan - to continue unabated in the meantime. I no longer doubt that a Conservative Party will be formed, indeed, here is one effort I am aware of. It must necessarily be sprung from the grass roots, but it is the very destination Tom-Tom has been directing them toward. Keep watching. Outside of all the noise, outside of all the directions you are being urged to take, there is much going on, things seen and unseen. More: http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/07/romney-brokered-or-third-party/trackback/ 76 Responses to “Romney: Brokered or Third Party?” |
February 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
The Maryland primary is on Tuesday, and I will be voting for Mitt, as well as for delegates for the GOP convention that are “Romney delegates”. If I could cross over to the Dims for one election, I’d vote for Monica’s boyfriend’s wife, but I don’t think that is possible in this State.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Anyone who abandons the Republicans in a hissy fit over McCain is abandoning the troops in a time of war and disgracing their party. If they want a third party, there already is one, it is Pat Buchanan’s and in the last election he got about 1% of the vote.
I have no idea if there will be brokered convention or not, but I am thoroughly disgusted with the cry babies who just can not accept defeat. Their stock answer to everything is a threat to sit out the next election.
Too bad our soldiers have to be jerked around and their sacrifices rendered meaningless by a bunch of self righteous sanctimonious sore losers.
In 1992, Clinton won because people threw a fit. Who knows, maybe they will do the same thing for his wife. If they do I hope they do form a third party because the Republicans would be better off without them. There would undoubtedly be two Independents they could attract for every Rushbot they lose.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
In fact I want to emphasize this point. I have relatives who fought in Iraq. Young men of my blood who went off to war for their country. They risked their lives and their parents spent a lot of anxious and sleep deprived nights praying for their safe return. We OWE these young men. Thousands of them lost their lives in Iraq. McCain is not Obama or Clinton….it is utterly ridiculous to act as if he is. If the Democrats win and surrender {and they promise they will do just that}, then we have betrayed the trust of these young men.
I do not want to hear some silliness from people about immigration, when they would let the Democrats win. Nor do I want to hear about judges, when they would let Obama become president to pick those judges. It is nothing but childish posturing from people who obviously never supported these young men and women in the first place. Thousands of dead soldiers later, they simper…sniff and flounce away, whining about McCain Feingold.
Hypocrites.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I don’t think I’d go that far, Terrye. I suspect that there is simply a great deal of frustration and anger (flames fanned, it must be said, but talk radio) and many people are simply so busy looking at “Satan John” that they forget he is prolife and protroop…and so are they.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
You know, here in NC one pundit noted that Jesse Helms and John McCain had equal conservative bona fides, based on their voting records.
Ronald Reagan wasn’t as ideologically pure as the flawed recollection of conservatives would have you believe.
By the way, I gave up memes for lent.
Did I mention that I celebrate Lent for a really long time?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
And btw, I have not noticed too many Huckabee supporters or McCain supporters promising to sit home and pout or worse yet, vote Democrat if their guy does not win. No, that distinction goes to the real, true {so they say} conservatives.
Reagan would be so proud.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Wow! I must confess, I’m rather surprised Romney dropped out. VERY Interesting!
February 7th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Anchoress:
You are being too generous. These people know full well what will happen if the Democrats win, they are just too busy acting like spoiled brats to care. And the thing is, it was the Republicans who wanted this war the most. I have supported it all along, I still do. Unlike some people out there.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
[...] Romney: Brokered or Third Party? | The Anchoress [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Nah, I am not convinced about a serious third party. And even if… the fact is, they’d be irrelevant and unable to devise a coherent platform that would attract anyone beyond the usual suspects. Give ‘em a week to lick their wounds and hurl the last bit of nastiness out of their frustrated selves.
I listened to Rush for awhile earlier… long as I could stand it. What a playground bully. He sounded completely irrational and unfocused. My mom was listening from the beginning of his show and she said the worst part was, Rush seemed to be blindsided by Romney’s drop out… she said Rush was still yammering on about a brokered convention or some other desperation move… then he cut to Romney’s speech and Mom said it was very embarrassing when it became clear Romney was dropping out and Rush didn’t quite know what to say.
Here is my bottom line: Rush is completely irrelevant. I don’t care either way, whether he joins the party or continues his present course. It no longer matters.
Today marks the beginning of the post-Limbaugh era.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Instead of “far right”, how about “beyond right” or “right plus”? Just trying to be of help.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I still doubt that the convention will be brokered—McCain simply has too much momentum to be stopped unless he does a “macaca”—but I do foresee a big fight over the party platform. There’s enough anti-McCain forces in the Republican party to win votes on a platform that contradicts many of his stances on issues: campaign finance reform, immigration, global warming.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Kathy, would that be like, “Doubleplusgoodright”?
February 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Mitt Romney certainly did not give anyone the impression he wants his people voting Democrat, so if they get stupid it is all on them.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hubbard, you may be right - I’m reading a lot of conservatives who “for now” are willing to give McCain the benefit of a doubt, but plenty who are still hyperventilating that they’re voting for Ronald Reagan or Fred Thompson. THOSE folks will be the third party formers.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
We’re doomed. DOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMED.
I heard about 10 minutes of McCain’s CPAC remarks. It sounded like it was half State of the Union laundry list, and half self-centeredness — an awful lot of I, I, I, I, I . . . Not a whole hell of a lot to get fired up about.
Jurassic McCain is going to get pummeled.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hubbard:
I doubt that Republicans want to go on record as being against campaign finance reform. That does not sound good, they would be better off sticking with some anti pork stuff and clean government stuff. That means more to people. As for immigration, I think the only thing they can really count on there is a promise at border security.They simply can not promise to deport 12 million people on a party platform. Down that road lies madness. As for global warming, we have to realize that people care about the environment. In fact the Republican party under Teddy Roosevelt was the first party to make conservation an issue. I heard yesterday that banks like J.P. Morgan and Chase were not going to lend money for the construction of coal burning plants unless the builders made promises in terms of carbon emissions. This is not going to go away. I think it has been hyped and politicized to the point of craziness, but there is no way that they can put pro green house gas emission language into a party platform. What they can do is make sure that any efforts to cut emissions have to be economically viable and sustainable. And they can tie that policy to energy independence.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
A couple other things — about this “pro-life” John McCain business –
How is it that John McCain gets the endorsement of not only a few Catholic pro-life “leaders,” but Republicans for Choice??? Why is it that exit polls have shown that, in every primary/caucus, it is John McCain who is getting the vote from supporters of legalized abortion???
Who is deluding whom here?
If anything, John McCain is nominally anti-abortion, not pro-life. He has never done anything more than cast a few votes, and has repeatedly indicated that he has little interest in social issues.
p.s. I hope my prior comments on McCain at CPAC are not lost to the Internet ether.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Which comment, Bender? I thought I released them all. The “doomed, doooooomed” post was trapped in the spam filter.
McCain - and even the folks at NRO say this - has always been staunchly pro-life, not “nominally.”
I have no idea why Republicans for a Choice would endorse him - you’d have to ask them.
I’m reading forums where people are upset that the “so-called conservatives at CPAC” dared to cheer McCain.
They, I figure, are just about ready for that third party I was talking about. They’re even more conservative than the “real” conservatives.”
They must be the Double-plus-Good Ones!
February 7th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
There it is, at 5:02.
McCain doing well with pro-choice voters is not due to irrationality on their part. That friend of mine whom I spoke of a few days ago is one of those Catholic pro-life leaders who supports McCain. I love her with all my heart, but she too is wrong to believe that McCain is anything but nominally anti-abortion.
In any event, although I’ve never been a big fan of hers, the best comment on the overall situation that I’ve seen is from Mary Matalin at NRO —
The prospect of McCain as the Republican nominee highlights a major missed opportunity for conservatives this season, lamented Matalin — who had been supporting Fred Thompson’s ill-fated candidacy.
“You reap what you sow. We like to applaud ourselves as the party of ideas and principle, but we turn out to be the party of performance art. All we did was gripe about Fred’s performance skills as opposed to his principles and policies — and . . . here we are,” Matalin said. “We let the perfect — as defined by performance — be the enemy of the great.” Fred Thompson would have been “a great candidate, a great standard bearer for conservatism, and a great president,” Matalin said, and his candidacy’s failure could mean that “we’re going to have to burn down the village.”
The rejection of Thompson suggests to Matalin that there is a larger problem — that conservatives who once prided themselves on their autonomy and ideological purity might have buckled to outside pressure. “So yeah, not only do we miss Fred, we’re going to pay for letting non-conservatives define and dictate who will be a good candidate,” she said.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Let’s think about this: Will a third, more conservative party be a more RELIGIOUS party? Just how encompassing (or viable) might that be?
Any new party has to be ideologically accommodating. Hard conservatives and strict religious orientation will only guarantee a small and ineffective effort.
Parties have to be tolerant of differing views. As you once noted, I may have to tolerate differences, but I don’t have to respect/agree with differences.
As for immigration, let’s get real: We are not and cannot deport 12-20 million illegals. Anyone who believes we can is barking up the wrong tree. In addition, where exactly on the priority tree would rounding up, holding and them deporting illegals be? Before eduction? Military spending? Economic development? Homeland security? I could go on, but you get the picture.
Illegal immigration is a problem to be sure, but it is only one of many- and it had better NOT be the issues that defines the direction the nation takes after this election.
Anchoress’ earlier commenter, Terrye, contains the best bit of dry wit I’ve heard in along time. She notes, “You are being too generous. These people know full well what will happen if the Democrats win, they are just too busy acting like spoiled brats to care…”
At the risk of incurring the Anchoress wrath, see this. [Edited to insert link - admin]
February 7th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Hmmm, is that what Matalin said? Well…I just wrote in this post:
For the last four years, many of the “true conservatives” have been doing a lot of complaining about President Bush and the “RINOS” and so forth, but outside of bellyaching, they’ve done nothing. They’ve known since ‘04 that Bush would have no veep successor, but they didn’t bother seeking out and grooming an acceptable candidate. Offered many choices this past year, none were enough to move them to monetary and clear-throated support. So yes, they’re stranded, and waiting for Tom-Tom to tell them what to do next.
Apparently Tom-Tom Mary is saying “burn down the village.” That’s helpful.
I frankly think her analysis is weak. There was no “outside pressure.” There was four years when a candidate could have been prepped. There were almost a dozen candidates to choose from and “everyone” loved Fred, so why didn’t they go for him? I don’t think it was “pressure.” I think people picked up on the fact that his heart was not all the way in, and a president’s heart has to be all the way IN this thing, if he is to be effective, and battle the congress and the media as Bush has had to do for 8 years.
I think the “true” conservatives simply got complacent. They thought it was enough to sit around and bitch. They thought somehow the magic Ronald Reagan was going to emerge…and I think it is significant that the talk radio people only got behind a candidate (and it was Romney) when it was just about too late. They could have gotten behind Thompson. They didn’t.
Why did they wait? If Thompson was the Golden Boy why didn’t they all jump on him and promote him?
That’s the question you have to ask yourselves. Why, if the conservative talk show guys were so concerned, they did nothing to keep their “preferred” candidates going?
Perhaps they wanted to watch this inevitable breaking off into a clear and unambiguous “Conservative Party.”
So, these folks who are complaining about the “so-called conservatives at CPAC” there was no pleasing them.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
DISAPPOINTED. KEENLY DISAPPOINTED….
Truly a statesman. Truly a gentleman. Truly the best man to have led our country in a time of war. A sad day for the Romney family and campaign. An even sadder day for America….
February 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
with a nod to our wild pasts, how about the Far Out Right?
February 7th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
McCain’s pro life credentials are every bit as strong as Romney’s. And Romney was the Chosen One.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Bender:
I am tired of listening to the never ending bitching and moaning and whining. McCain earned this whether you like it or not. And thus far other than acting as if they are better, stronger, smarter and morally superior the McCain haters have not come up with anyone any better who can actually win an election. God, it never ends. Bitch Bitch Bitch
February 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
God, sometimes I’d like to give everyone in these threads a cold Guinness or a stiff brandy and soda.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
McCain’s pro life credentials are every bit as strong as Romney’s.
Exactly my point.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Dude, seriously now. You really must come up with a better sales pitch.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
On a much more interesting point — I finally realized who Jacob is. Duh. If only I had remembered a few lines that both Ben and Tom said in season two.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I think it was Bender that pointed out that Romney didn’t seem to imply his supporters to vote for Dems. I think he is more sincere than given credit for and that he was really trying to prove he was The Chosen One. Unfortunately for him– he chose the wrong folks to impress, the ones who were already convinced: his base.
I hope he doesn’t do something sneaky. Maybe he’ll be someone’s VP. McCain’s? Hickapoo’s?
I may be a RINO in a Catholic gal’s garb– i always thought it was I who was Conservative and voting Pub proved it. Now we need a new Litmus test for sincere Conservative values? It may just get too confusing for the average folk and we’ll all stay home.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I don’t think I ever said Romney said his voters should vote for the Dems. That’s Coulter and many of the folks in other forums (and in my email!)
February 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Far Out
Far Right
Far Out Right
Far Outraged Right
February 7th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
[...] voting for Romney. They were voting for Obama. All of them. This certainly reeks of something. As The Anchoress says, Keep watching. Outside of all the noise, outside of all the directions you are being urged to [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Greetings all,
This is my first post, and I am likely to make a bit of a splash (one way or the other). So be it:
I am one in the category that many are talking about. I have not decided finally to sit this election out, but I am giving it serious consideration. I am not angry with Mr. McCain. I think he is a good man. I do not think he would make a good president. I had serious reservations when voting for President Bush the second time. I still think he is a good man, but his priorities have steadily diverged from the way I believe is profitable for the country. I have served honorably in the armed forces of the United States, as have several of my relatives. I am very concerned about a great many of the issues that you speak, and I do not take this decision lightly. However, I consider this continuing “run to the center” by the Republicans the continuation of a trend that I find it increasingly difficult to support.
As I was talking with my wife this evening, I mentioned the plight of a lot of African Americans in the Democrat party. Surveys show that a lot of African Americans are conservative on a number of issues. A good one that comes to mind immediately is school choice. From what I’ve heard, 70-80% want it, but it’s a complete non-starter in the Democrat party. Unions are too strong, and they know that the African American vote isn’t going anywhere, so they get ignored. Their choice. Their consequences. I refuse to occupy a similar position on the opposite side of the political fence. If the Republicans feel the current strategy is the proper one to take, I won’t slam them for it, but I’m not going to rubber stamp it on the basis of “at least they’re not Democrats.” That justification is starting to wear a bit thin on me.
A part of the reason that I make this consideration is related to my faith. One of the many lessons that Christ taught during his stay on earth was that there are more important things than winning. He had the chance to have everything go his way as long as he was willing to acknowledge who was calling the shots. He stuck to principles. It cost him, but in the long run, it was for my benefit.
I am in no way comparing myself with Christ except as one who aspires to be more like him. I do have a lot more faith in God than in political parties. If a Dem gets in down the road, yeah, there could be some social damage. On the other hand, if the Republican gets elected it could slow the damage down some, but with the current choice I feel it would still be significant. I’ll pass under those circumstances. I also believe in the power of God to bring good out of every situation. We don’t know what will happen with the election yet, but this could very well be the beginning of a new movement, a third party, or any number of things that I haven’t thought of. At any rate, I’m convinced that the country will survive until it’s time is up, and it won’t be Obama, Clinton, or McCain who makes that decision. That’s pretty much it for now.
Anchoress,
I read your blog regularly though this is my first time commenting. Perhaps not the best introduction, but such is life. Keep up the good work and stay away from the poison. Until later.
Gary
February 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Welcome, Gary, thanks for the thoughtful post.
My bottom line is keeping faith with the troops and with the unborn and elderly and all the others who are in danger from a side that has more regard for expediency than life.
I don’t know how to keep faith with them while sitting out an election.
This conversation will go on for a while, I think.
Have you considered that at least “slowing down” things until the “conservatives” can get themselves together might be the right thing to do?
February 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Anchoress:
I, too, have read your thoughtful and insightful posts for awhile, but haven’t left a comment. I suppose because there is always much to ponder and I didn’t have much to add. Here, however, I must say I find it ironic the passionate dislike screaming through the comments for a post that says, “slow down” and “wait” and “listen.”
I live in a state with no republican primary (how’s that for an excessively blue state!). So all of this noise has been rather abstract for me. Like Gary, I am also one of your faithful readers profoundly hesitant about McCain and, I suppose, “far right.” (Personally, I prefer the term “conservative” as opposed to “republican,” but I guess that is like a “democratic” calling themselves “progressive.” Ah, but I digress…)
I’ll prayerfully consider my vote when it is time, but it is almost a “pregnancy” length of time away. It may not be for McCain. It may. Everything is too noisy all around right now.
In the interim, however, I am going to focus my energy and effort where it matters — legislative races. (We do not have a governor/mayoral race this time around.)
February 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Conservative folks now are free to quit bitching and quit moaning and quit being crybabies and fall in line and support John McCain. And maybe if every conservative votes for him — maybe — he might squeak by with a bare majority or plurality in the general election. And maybe the votes will be in the right states in order to get the necessary electoral votes. Or maybe all those centrist voters will decide to be a part of history, and the conservative votes will all be for naught.
But let’s not fool ourselves. If you actively support McCain before the election, if you vote for him in November, then do so with your eyes wide open. Do not pretend, and do not demand that others pretend, that he is something that he is not. Do not adopt the Clintonian tactic of disingenously dismissing every flaw as if it does not exist and defending those aspects of McCain that you know are indefensible. Vote for him with your eyes wide open, and know exactly what it is you are doing, and why.
Meanwhile, here in Virginia, we are seeing the first McCain TV ads. Tonight, I saw two McCain ads attacking Romney. Great use of your money there. And the other ad I saw took a slap at George W. Bush while purporting to promote McCain.
Don’t cry “betrayal” if McCain is elected. Go ahead, fight to prevent a President Hillary or Obama. But vote for him with your eyes wide open. A scorpion is always a scorpion, and a tiger is always a tiger, even if we hope for them to be something else.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Kristine - I still maintain that we have no idea who will be on the top of what ticket. A lot can happen. Welcome and thanks for chiming in.
And Bender - I still maintain that we have no idea who will be on top of what ticket. A lot can happen. Breathe. Smile. God loves you.
Don’t you sense the movements and wheels at work? Sit back a bit and watch. Breathe some more.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
we have no idea who will be on top of what ticket.
I suppose it could be Kang, or Kodos.
Maybe Jack Johnson, or John Jackson. Just so long as it is not Nixon’s head — he’ll sell children’s organs to zoos for meat and break into people’s houses at night and wreck up the place. Just like your typical politician.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:48 am
I was fortunate enough to live in SC and have a choice of candidates on primary day. My candidate came in third or fourth and dropped out the next day or so.
I have never had McCain or Romney on my top of the list, but neither have I had Huckabee there.
We’ve just had such a lousy selection, and yet we can’t afford to sulk and show them this time the way everyone did two years ago. If you think McCain will be a bad president for conservatives consider what Hillary or Barack will be.
The Anchoress has already mentioned SCOTUS and that’s something that will affect us for decades to come. Those are lifetime appointments. Do we really want SCOTUS justices who make law out of foreign law and not interpret our constitution as they should?
No, my candidate didn’t win, didn’t come close, but for the sake of my country I will willingly vote for McCain for president because the alternative is too horrible to even contemplate.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Bender:
I did not say you had to fall in line with anyone. I just said that bitching is not the same thing as coming up with a viable alternative who can actually win an election.
McCain won the primaries, he did not steal them. That means real, live people voted for him.
So no, you can sit it out because your guy did not win, but if you do don’t complain about the outcome.
And do not expect me to give you a pass for abandoning the troops.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I decided earlier today that I’m just going to go insane now and just try to relax. What’s done is done. Nothing to do except watch the shenanigans and see how it all plays out.
However, I have to share something I hope someone else will find funny (not expecting the McCain cheerleader Terry to though *wink*). There’s a catchy little tune at the beginning of old Donald Duck cartoons. As I was watching some I got off Netflix this morning, I realized that not only is it easy to convert them to have “John McCain” in the lyrics, it’s so very fitting. Once I realized that John McCain is Donald Duck, the cartoons were ever so much more funny than they ever had been. Did I mention I’ve decided to just go insane a little? Anyway, here’s my lyrics for our loveable John McCain:
Who’s got the sweetest disposition?
One guess that’s who!
Who’d never ever start an argument?
Who never shows a bit of temperament?
Who’s never wrong but always right?
Who’d never dream of starting a fight?
Who gets stuck with all of the pain?
No one but John McCain!
Enjoy.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:07 am
And Anchoress:
I am not psychic but I think McCain will be at the top of that list. One reason why is that in spite of the Rush Limbaughs out there he has a 72% approval rating among the GOP rank and file.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:18 am
And if these pure conservatives try to back something like a Lou Dobbs run with backing from anti Catholic, anti Latino, anti immigration, not so subtle far right loonies the only thing they will accomplish is a super majority for the Democrats who will end up with control of both the Congress and White House.
People need to grow up.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I actually think this voting quandary relates to this just war question I’ve been prodding in my short time here.
If you believe your faith allows you to kill in order to preserve and protect then you make this unappealing but necessary compromise for the on-balance good. This is one type of sacrifice. if you can accept another kind of sacrifice which holds unreservedly to the non-violence that extends to enemies and babies and thereby refuse to engage in war then it is consistent to be uncompromising in the voting cage. So if you can consider engaging in war on behalf of what you hold sacred, given that it is a regrettable imperfect solution, then you can also vote for a less than perfect candidate. Only if a person of faith refuses to smite under all circumstances, can she without hypocrisy turn the other lever, i.e. not vote, and suffer the consequence of absolute principles.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
OK, our guy won’t sit on the thrown, overlooking for the moment that we had so many “our guys”. But if we stay cool and rational we can be a major power behind the thrown. We got to start thinking like machine politicians to get our program through. And I still think, knowingly or not, that Rush and Ann Coulter are playing this game right in making it clear that McCain is going to have to scratch our rightwing backs before we will scratch his. Ann has even added a delightfully malevolent twist in offering to help Hillary, thereby killing two birds with one stone.
Cheer guys, the day isn’t lost, not by a mile.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Terrye, heavens, I never said I was psychic. I’ve just said I’m not convinced that things will not be dramatically different soon and that nothing is written in stone. It’s entirely possible that McCain will be the nominee, looks more likely every day.
Roro - I know you’ve read my stuff so I needn’t get into the war with you. Pacific Europe is slowly but surely coming under the grip of Sharia Law. I don’t think Pacifism is the answer when there is a movement out there determined to destroy you or die trying and willing to use women, children and the mentally ill if that’s what it takes.
igout - glad to see you feeling so merry. I would only argue that Coulter and delightful seem like two words that never should go together!
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am
You honestly believe there is still going to be a brokered convention? Who’s the “far out” right again?
McCain is the GOP nominee to be. Ideological purity was never demanded by anyone in this race–even those people you have chosen to demonize here. If it was, Romney should never have won the CPAC straw poll last year–but he did overwhelmingly. If you choose to disregard much of McCain’s political history in order to cherry pick aspects of support, fine. But you should not disparage people who have taken his long record and viewed it another way. You are doing exactly the kind of twisting you accuse the “far right” of doing.
I’m voting for McCain in November because ultimately the meme “Vote McCain or else” works with me. I have deep reservations that it will work with the electorate as a whole, but if it doesn’t the result will not be Rush Limbaugh’s fault or anyone else’s. It will be McCain’s.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Caustic I’m not demonizing anyone and you know I’m not demonizing anyone. I have not cherry-picked McCain (there is much I don’t like about the guy and much I came to admire in Romney but the truth is I wanted neither of them at the top of the ticket). You’ll excuse me for presuming there was and is a desire for ideological purity within a faction of the party when the party had the choice of several good men and couldn’t find the wherewithall to throw their money and support behind any of them until McCain looked inevitable. If you could read my email from some of them who tell me I am not “real” or “true” and that I am dishonorable and unprincipled because I actually plan to exercise my right to vote in November, then you’d understand that there is a faction that is looking exactly for purity, and no, they’re not the CPAC guys - they’re the guys who watched the CPAC guys yesterday and then wrote to me about “those so-called conservatives.” They’re the guys who look at everything Bush has done and tell me he’s a socialist.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I live in West Virginia. Apparently, there is no real reason for us to go and vote. Out of 30 delagates, 18 delagates have already been assigned to Huckabee.
However - we West Virginian unwashed don’t actually get to vote in the primary until MAY.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/05/huckabee_wins_wva.html
This is a huge frustration with the current primary system. By the time some of us get to vote, those that we would have liked to have voted for have already dropped out! There are only 12 delagates left, and only *nine* are chosen by voters. Too bad we don’t have a one day, everyone goes to the polls system in the US. I’m almost ready to say I don’t care who gets picked for the GOP candidate. I’ll be voting so late it is quite frankly pointless.
Wake me up when this is over, huh?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Tsh! Tsh! Anchoress, Annie not delightful? Depends on your personal taste I guess. She’s is a two-fisted brawler and eats libberuls at half time and that delights the hell out of me. I only wish we had a thousand or so more like her.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:08 am
You’ll excuse me if I find her less than charming, igout, considering I just got an email from one of her admirers trying to convince me that the best way to save America is to “quit” her - just walk away and try to start something new because “this doesn’t work.”
Once again I come face-to-face with an extreme that says “I love my country too much to let it live like this,” that sick “let’s Honor-Kill America” idea, and I am in a seriously pissed off place right now.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
That’s OK Anchoress. Piss away. But you know how our guts work exactly because there’re all kinds of messy germs down there doing all kinds of gross things to digest and separate and move? It’d be silly to shake your fist at them because they’re not pretty and fart out loud sometimes. Well, political movements need the churning microbes too. Your email friend is just part of that process that isn’t suitable for polite company, but nonetheless is essential. And boy! can that Annie crack one to get a whole roomful choking!
Back to the GOPs future, I think we’re saying the same thing in different ways…but I sense you’re not in the mood for mirth today.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I am in a seriously pissed off place right now.
Easy to get there. Let me offer you some words from a wise woman — Breathe. Smile. God loves you.
Place your trust, place your faith in He, and only He, who will never disappoint, because, by His very nature, He cannot disappoint, rather than in men who are guaranteed to let you down.
Now roro, with respect to the application of moral truth to human life, Catholic teaching, at least, is very clear: moral teaching on human life is the same as it is on any other matter — in ALL things, do good and avoid evil. Choosing the “lesser” of two evils is still choosing evil. Rather, always, in every case, do good. Never, ever, ever do evil. Never compromise with evil, never compromise with Truth, never compromise with Love. Never do evil so that good might result. This is the teaching in EVERY case and in EVERY matter.
And so, for it to be permissible in some cases to take life (and it is, as in self-defense or just war) is NOT, as a matter of reason and principle, an instance of sacrificing one good and compromising with evil for the greater good. There is another reason it is morally licit to do so. We must always, in every case, do good, and never do evil.
Exactly what that reason is, exactly why it is permissible in some cases to take life, I will let you explore and discover on your own, but instances of the use of deadly force in individual or societal self-defense, including war, are NOT cases of allowing a little bit of evil to promote the greater good. There is another reason it is morally licit to do so.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yipes! I so dislike being misunderstood so I will try to be more clear in stating what I think is an important point.
Ideally, enemies will ’see the light’ and change their awful ways. This rarely happens, so we take up arms. This is a solution but not the best solution. We accept this compromise because it is still a better alternative than our own slaughter.
Similarly, Jesus isn’t running for political office. Most candidates are second best. Those who claim to be uncompromising say they will not vote for the flawed McCain. I says they have already accepted compromise of principles when they choose war over miraculous change of heart, or diplomacy, and cannot defend the decision not to vote on the basis of some virginal purity of choice.
I don’t need to be convinced of the Islamic menace and the importance of this fight. I’m just trying to break up the squabbling among apparent allies in favor of the Big Picture.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I was speaking in general terms. Neither one of us is psychic. But my concern are those soldiers so many seem to have forgotten. They can not just decide to sit out a war, they have to do their duty. Abandoning them over some partisan nonsense, is unpardonable. I really feel that way.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I think McCain or whomever becomes the nominee- should be supported just to shut the pieholes of Libs like Joy Behar on the View. I’ve never seen such an ignoramus(& i had to look up spelling for that one so i wouldn’t look like one, too). Everything she says is supposed to be funny- but, what’s so funny about drawn blood? Elizabeth keeps her cool, though.
Caustic– the Lib Ann Coulter. & i only saw, like- three minutes.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I swear, I really do have the best readers in the world.
Terrye I absolutely agree with you about our troops. One of the reasons I was so annoyed this morning was because I had had an exchange with a smart with whom I have sometimes corresponded (and sometimes butted heads), and he basically was in the “quit, because America is in bad shape, and just trust in God, because my principles are too seriously offended to let this go on.”
Which is like saying, “my wife is dying of skin cancer but I am so seriously offended that she did this to herself by laying out in the sun that I will not subscribe to the treatment that may prolong her life long enough for better medicines to come. I love her so much I’ll just walk away and let God take care of it.”
Which is not too far away from “I love my daughter so much that I must kill her over the shame of being raped.”
This “walk away” mentality drives me nuts specifically because it abandons the very troops these folks say they support whole-heartedly. And to me, abandoning troops in the middle of a war is grave.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Regarding squabbling vs. supporting or, rather, supporting NOW, this very instant!
Look, the election is NINE months away. McCain’s the nominee. The only next time to vote for him that really counts is in November. So any talk about abandonment is awfully premature.
Besides, this is a discussion that needs to be had. For too many years folks have been told to go along and get along. We can no longer afford to tell folks to hush up, and avoid dealing with things out of a desire to be nice. Sometimes a little blood-letting is necessary. And better we have that talk, and create some real understanding NOW, and resolve some things NOW, than we continue to secretly harbor anxieties and annoyances and allow that all that being “pissed off” to build up so much that our bladders explode in November.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I agree with you that the talking is good.
I also will continue to say that things turn on a dime, and we have no idea who will head the ticket in November…which means that yes, the talking is very good.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
[...] Romney: Brokered or Third Party? [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I will vote for McCain if he is at the top. I would vote for Romney, or Giuliani, also. Why? Strong on the war against Islamo-fascism, which to me is the overriding concern of our time. I am almost a single issue voter right now. The policy positions of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are an anathema to me, and far more dangerous to our survival as a country than any not-quite-true-conservative positions of Mr. McCain. Also, I credit Mr. McCain with giving me the helping hand to cross parties after my dismay with the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment era. Mr. McCain was the first Republican for whom I ever voted, and I was able to do so in a presidential primary against George Bush. As we know, Mr. Bush won the nomination, and I went on to vote for him, the second Republican for whom I ever voted.
I wish some people would just calm down a bit. The press makes it hard, wants everything to be breathless, and worrisome, and hurrisome. Evil thrives on chaos, and I try to remember that whenever someone is trying to make me believe that I need to be demanding immediate action to solve some problem, be it the economy, the environment, mortgages, or some other issue.
Best wishes to all on this blog, and to the Anchoress.
Alexandrag
February 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
[...] he had tried. Dead-enders and conspiracy theorists are already wondering whether a combination of Romney’s ’suspended’ campaign and Huckabee’s expressed willingness to carry on and presumably score more delegates here and [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Not to be deliberately dense (I am a vet, as I mentioned before), but I honestly can’t equate not voting with “abandoning” the troops. Realistically, the support for victory will go down, but I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where that will increase troop casualties. What I consider more likely is that the enemy will reduce activity during the drawdown, and then come out in force against the Iraqi government. This is certainly a moral tragedy, but not equivalent with abandoning our soldiers.
On the subject of walking away, there are a good number of other examples that I propose to respectfully counter the ones presented. There is also the love that says I have to let my child go rather than let them destroy the family, that I love my spouse too much to cover for their drinking anymore, that I love my child too much to try to cover up their hit and run, etc. I agree there can be a fine line between being harsh and being an enabler. The problem with some situations is that they will never improve unless a stand is made, and making a stand involves a cost. Saying that this is the wrong time begs the question “When is the right time?” Even if McCain is elected, there isn’t a person out there that can guarantee what will or will not happen as far as legislation, judges, etc. I share most of the values of everyone that I’ve read on this site, and I respect the opinions presented. The situation right now is still very dynamic, and I haven’t come to any final conclusions yet by a long shot. All that I am saying is that I can see the possibility that a principled loss at this juncture may be a far better alternative in the long run than to continue to allow the party which nominally is supposed to represent conservative values continue on its present course unchallenged. If the last few years have shown me anything it is that the Republican leadership is very complacent. I don’t see any improvement anytime soon without some type of clear message. If someone has a more effective way to deliver it, I am certainly open to suggestions.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Talking is good. Sure beats violent coups and revolution, like some Third World country (even though Hillary Peron seems to think that wives automatically are entitled to succeed their husbands in power).
February 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Meanwhile, MSNBC shows itself (again) to be a whore for the Clintons by suspending David Shuster for making the obvious observation that the Clintons are pimping out Chelsea, just like they’ve pimped out countless others over the years.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
gbaker - if we walk away from Iraq you agree that this is a moral tragedy. Is it not also rendering meaningless the sacrificed lives of almost 5,000 troops and the life-changing wounds of thousands more?
As to your “tough love” scenario, I see your point but when you do that to a family you’re affecting the lives of a few. “Tough love” on the nation affects millions and it bears repeating that we are still paying for the four years of Jimmy Carter, all these decades later. I do not see a “principled loss” that can end up genuinely reshaping the country into something we do not recognize is better than trying to seat an imperfect - by any measure - candidate who is at least better than the alternative and can stave off the worst effects of the “principled loss” until some of the promising young people who have been talked about, Jindal, Steele and others, can get a bit more experience under their belt.
A “principled loss” will not get you any nearer to what you want - it will just make the job of the next right-leaning president that much more difficult.
Looking at the long term, a “principled loss” seems extremely short sighted to me, and it depends too much upon the big “maybe” that Americans can be relied upon to “do the right thing next time…or the time after that.”
As I’ve said before…Bush signed campaign reform legislation figuring the SCOTUS would “do the right thing.” You cannot depend on anything as fickle as a mood. Which is why to me, a principled loss will not work. And may I point out, the “principled loss” of ‘06 does not seem to be bearing the expected fruit.
I’m a great believer in prayer, in allowing God to work and in downplaying the control man has on events. But I also believe that God gave us reason so we can use it.
And may I add that even Mark Tapscott, who advocated losing in ‘06 and perhaps in ‘08 has decided that if McCain IS the nominee, he is so fiscally conservative, he may be worth voting for.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bender, I happen to agree that Shuster deserved suspension for that remark. Chelsea seems like a fine young woman, and even if she were not, you don’t talk about someone’s daughter that way, or talk about a young woman’s parents that way. It’s just wrong.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Anchoress,
“Is it not also rendering meaningless the sacrificed lives of almost 5,000 troops and the life-changing wounds of thousands more?”
No, actually. The soldiers went to do an honorable job. They did. They may be unhappy (as would I) at a premature withdrawal, but nothing that the next president does or does not do can render their service or their sacrifice meaningless.
While I respect your skepticism of the “prinicpled loss” theory, I have to point out that your suggestion of a “win by compromise” has all of the same weaknesses. You can’t honestly tell me that you know what McCain will do in the oval office, what kind of problems may occur, what kind of judges he will appoint, etc. For that matter, considering his age, you don’t know that he’d survive the first year in office. You mention not being able to depend on anything as fickle as a mood. From what I’ve read, Mr. McCain is quite given to “moods.”
Again, November is a long way off and nothing is written stone, but I still see little here to persuade me that your analysis is better than my own.
Until next time, peace to you and yours.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
gbaker, you’re absolutely right, we have no idea what any of these people will do in office. As I’ve written elsewhere, the job will bring out qualities in the president that neither we nor he/she know they have, which is why all of our wild musings in the end count for not much. Yes, November is along way off and - again - things turn on a dime. We don’t know who any of the nominees are really going to be, we don’t know if any of them will survive a year in office or even a day. Last week I suggested everyone calm down, wait and see what would happen. No one wanted to!
Maybe, finally, after talking and venting, America can settle down to a quiet and fruitful Lent and recollect themselves!
I’m tired. The thread has I think exhausted the topic…why don’t we all take a breather and think of something fun to talk about!
February 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Anchoress,
I am late to this party, but would like to quickly add my two cents if I may.
If the self-appointed “real conservatives” want to take their ball and go home, I say “Good Riddance!”
Let us ask ourselves who these people are. From what I can see, they are all talk (radio) and no action.
They seem to have enough free time they can blog, listen to talk radio, and call in a great deal, while the rest of us are at work, school, or taking care of the kids. They do make a lot of noise. However,a Wall Street Journal commentary points out that “Political pundits used to maintain that the American electorate was galvanized around the issue of illegal immigration. Voters, they claimed, would punish any candidate who failed to take a tough
stance on immigrants and did not adamantly oppose the “A” word — Amnesty — in all its tortured definitions.Yet a funny thing happened in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.
The most anti-immigrant candidates performed below expectations, and those accused of supporting amnesty and in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants won.”
It seems they are all talk (radio) and no action. I think we will be able to survive without them.
Their arch-foe is an American war hero with an 80% rating from the American Conservative Union. That the GOP should nominate a war hero, with an established record of public service, especially in time of war, is entirely keeping with the history of the party. This is not a radical deviation from “true conservatism”, whatever that is.
What has these people enraged, from what I can see, is two things. First, as I said, said war hero stood up to the nativists, racists, and hate filled “know-nothings” that were so evident in last years immigration debate. He supports a policy dealing with illegal aliens more in tune with (gasp!) Catholic Social Teaching, racial tolerance, and economic reality than they like. Second, they are angry that when people start counting votes and not just measuring noise, their real lack of power becomes evident. Their much beloved Trancedo (who dodged the Vietnam draft by claiming to be too mentally ill to serve in the military; but is somehow a “true conservative” while Senator McCain is not) dropped out before the first vote was cast; and their total inability to stop said arch foe from winning primary, after primary, after primary and securing the Republican nomination has exposed their total lack of real political power.
So I say we should let them go, let them leave the party in their…dozens. If they want to take their ball and go home… let them take their ball and go home.
Why?
First it gives the Senator McCain an opportunity to stage a “Sister Soulja” moment, (not that he seems to lack those) thus increasing his appeal to both Hispanic voters and moderates.
More importantly, let us examine the possible results of an exodus of the loud ones. After the loud ones leave only two things can happen, either McCain wins in the fall, or McCain looses in the fall.
If McCain wins, he will have won without the support of the loud, troublesome, and embarrassing minority of the party. He will owe them nothing, and he will have proven that the GOP can win without them. Their phone calls will no longer be returned, they will no longer be courted and catered to, and their seat at the table will go to someone else. Serves them right from what I say.
If McCain looses, they will be in a position akin to Ralph Nader and the Greens after Bush’s narrow victory in 2000. The Democrats suffered through the 315,576,000 seconds of Bush’s first term cursing and blaming Ralph Nader at least 315,576,000 times; if not more. I am not a Democratic insider, but I get the definite feeling that, if Mr. Nader is not subjected to a daily “Two minutes of hate” ala Emmanuel Goldstein, at the DNC HQ during those years, his status was awfully close. Even today one has to wonder if his phone calls get returned, and I do not see him as someone who has a “seat at the table” in Democratic Circles.
The loud ones would find themselves in a similar position during an Obama administration, and forever after.
Either way, the loud “true conservatives’ will find themselves without real influence, without a party, without anyone who listens to them, and without a way back. If this is what they want, let us respect their choices. Who are we to stand in their way? The exit door is open.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:14 am
My opposition to Senator McCain is not purely out of partisan or political conviction.
I strongly believe, the future of Our Nation is not going to be helped by the unethical Keating 5 Member, who is peddling Gasoline Taxation to address Global Warming.
I hope I am wrong…
Senators lack vision, and often fail to address problems.
John McCain never led the effort to focus on Radical Islamic Terrorism prior to 9-11, or even fight against the Clintons weakening US National Security and Intel Capability.
John McCain’s career has been dictated by his love of being portrayed positively in the Media, and an apparent tendency to ‘act - speak’ to simply gain attention.
John McCain is promising to stop pork, yet in 24 years in the Senate, he never led the effort to reform the problem.
John McCain is saying he will reduce spending, yet, he just voted for a massive stimulus (spending) package, and in his 24 years in the Senate, never led a movement to stop spending.
The 3 decades old Washington Insider, who lies about his reason for voting against tax cuts, and smears opponents at the Reagan Library, will not help matters in the Swampy Beltway, any more than he already has.
Does anyone remember John McCain’s positions on the Gulf War? (He was wrong…)