Sunday, March 09, 2008
|
|
On Brent Bozell's WaPost Op-Ed
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
3:42 PM
|
It has been observed that the WaPost tends to only publish conservatives' op-eds when they are attacking other conservatives -- or at least -- attacking other Republicans. Brent Bozell's column today on John McCain is no exception.
To hear Bozell tell it, every election won by a Republican in the last twenty-five years has been because of conservatives' support -- and every election a Republican has lost in the last twenty-five years has been because the GOP took conservatives for granted.
While I agree that conservative turnout is vital, a multitude of factors are involved in determining the outcome of any election. For example, though George H.W. Bush was certainly hurt in a major way by breaking his "no new tax pledge", he might still have won in 1992 had Ross Perrot not entered the race. And while George W. Bush did earn the support of conservatives in 2000, he still lost the popular vote that year.
Bozell goes on to say there was a fresh crop of conservatives running for president in 1996, but that the Republican establishment chose Bob Dole, any way. While we can probably all agree Dole was a bad choice, Bozell neglects to mention that the alternatives to Dole in '96 were not particularly impressive (neither Steve Forbes nor Pat Buchanan had ever been elected to anything -- and Phil Gramm's campaign, for whatever reason -- never took off. ... And Dan Qualyle? Enough said).
Its not as if Republicans chose Dole in '96 in spite of having a strong bench of candidates to choose from. What is more, it was Republican primary voters -- not the "establishment" -- that picked Dole by voting for him in primaries (for better or worse). At least, I don't remember party bosses having a big meeting to pick the GOP nominee back in 1996 ...
Bozell's criticism of "the establishment" is also interesting. By 1996, the conservative movement was well-established, and the GOP had not been controlled by "Rockafeller Republicans" for over a decade. Rush Limbaugh had been on the air for years, at this point, as well. At one point in the column, Bozell mentions that he has worked in politics for thirty years, and then at another point, he decries the "professional class." This, of course, begs the question: At what point does one become part of the "professional class"? Does it happen after thirty-one years?
Regardless of what you think about '96, I would argue the last time Republican voters overlooked qualified conservative candidates (with long conservative track records) in favor of a moderate -- was in 1988. That year, either Senator Laxalt or Jack Kemp would have been much better heirs to the Reagan Revolution than George H.W. Bush. ... But remember, Republicans still won that year ...
Still, Bozell's fundamental point is correct; John McCain should not -- and cannot -- take conservatives for granted -- and expect to be elected president.
But his column comes on the heels of McCain's CPAC speech last month, as well as his speech to the conservative Council for National Policy (CNP) -- just this weekend. Clearly, McCain is making an effort to reach out to conservatives -- and that should be encouraged -- not punished.
Why Bozell chose this particular time to write in the Washington Post that the man the GOP has nominated to be president is, "the one who arguably least qualifies as a Reagan conservative," is beyond me. This is the sort of argument that would have been better made before McCain secured the nomination.
|
|
JUAN HERNANDEZ TELL US YOUR HEARING IS BAD.
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE TO IMMIGRANTS AS HOME INVADERS ARE TO HOUSE GUESTS.
HOPE THAT HELPS YOU GET IT. SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT.
|
|
It's really up to Sen. McCain. If he wants our votes, he has to earn them.
He said he heard us after the last amnesty fight. He heard two things right. We want the border secured and we don't trust them. There apparently was alot he didn't hear.
He hired Juan Hernandez, who represents foreign nationals illegally in our country as his hispanic outreach, instead of reaching out to someone from "You Don't Speak For Me" a group of citizens of hispanic descent who oppose illegal aliens.
He said a couple of weeks ago he would sign McCain/Kennedy if it were put on his desk.
If he wants my vote, there are a couple of things he could do.
1. Publicly dismiss and disavow Juan Hernandez and the Reconquista for which he stands.
2. Apologize for conspiring in secret with La Raza and Ted Kennedy and trying to jam amnesty down our throats.
3. Pledge to veto ANY amnesty bill.
4. Pledge to enforce the laws, including deportation, which is the penalty for illegal aliens.
It's up to Sen. McCain, he can represent the interests of American citizens and uphold the rule of law or he can continue to court the favor of liberals and illegal aliens.
I will not vote for the latter.
|
|
You simply CANNOT have national security if you will not defend your own borders or enforce your own laws. Foreign nationals numbering in the thousands are entering our country at will daily. John McCain has done and will do NOTHING to stop it. Don't believe me? Ask Juan Hernandez! |
|
|
Meanwhile, he makes back room deals with La Raza and liberal Democrats to try and sneak an amnesty bill through in the dark of night. He puts laws in place that restrict private citizens rights to criticize him for these actions during a campaign season via McCain-Feingold. He chastises real conservatives who dare publically draw contrast between the liberal Democrats and conservatives. Whose side is this guy on? How can any RIGHT-minded conservative reward this guy with their vote? The man is a disaster waiting to happen to the conservative movement and the country. |
|
To me the big three issues, in no particular order, are abortion, national security and fiscal restraint. On all of these John McCain is strong, even a champion.
1) To me, any of these three, TAKEN ALONE, outweigh in importance all of the issues on which I might disagree with him put together.
2) Even on the issues on which I disagree with him, his position is superior to that of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
3) Those conservatives who demand ideological purity (some dreamworld clone of their idealized version of Reagan) and won't support McCain will get what they deserve (but what the country doesn't) - a leftwing Democrat in the oval office, working with a leftwing Congress, appointing leftwing judges.
4) They will blame it on the party for nominating McCain, but the blame will truly be theirs for their obstinacy.
5) And those with reservations about McCain should not try to make him "toe the line" on their pet issues. Nothing is worse than a flip-flopper, and McCain's maverick streak makes him appealing to independents whose votes are needed to carry a general election. Focus on the dozens of issues on which you agree with McCain instead of the handful where you don't.
|
|
|
So McCain showing up to a couple of conservative clubs and not insulting us or flipping us the bird counts as reaching out? Wow. I feel so much better about the giant 'f**k you' I've been getting from him for 8 years on pretty much every principle I believe in from judges to amnesty. I want to shout from the rooftops..John McCain doesn't think I'm a bigot anymore...Lindsey Graham doesn't want me to shut up. I matter again! (as long as I vote the R..(slap flippers togther...R! R! R! Vote the arrrrrrr! Ok, I've made myself want to puke. And I was lying. I'm not voting for the grubby b***ard. I don't care if he comes to CPAC, CincPac or SackNPack; no vote for weasels. |
|
"Its not as if Republicans chose Dole in '96 in spite of having a strong bench of candidates to choose from. What is more, it was Republican primary voters -- not the "establishment" -- that picked Dole by voting for him in primaries (for better or worse). At least, I don't remember party bosses having a big meeting to pick the GOP nominee back in 1996 ..."
I don't remember having a meeting either. I do remember that the other candidates were marginalized by directing the bulk of the questions to the party and media's favorites, like it was done this time against Ron Paul. Most folks don't follow this stuff closely and as a consequence don't know how the other candidates stand on issues. |
|
That Hasterts' seat has been taken by a demo-rat.
Dan in SC, McCain will do nothing to deny amnesty,...he has no intention of listening to conservatives.
That's why I won't vote for him in Nov., and I think he will lose to the "rats" because of his stubborn refusal to commit.
NAH, instead he preaches that BS about some poor woman whose son served in Iraq, but yet she is to be deported?....
Hey, Seno'r Juan,......she broke the soverign law of AMerica by chancing coming here, did she NOT?
And why was this so called illegal alien son allowed to serve in the military?
How many illegal alien mothers have sons serving in the military,......49???
Yeah, that's the way to go McCain, try to make America feel guilty and dilute the real topic at hand! |
|
|
But I'm searching all my favorite conservative websites to see how WE did in holding on to Denny Hastert's safe seat. And not a word. This seems ominous. |
|
|
my idea of "reaching out" to conservatives. As I have said before, John McCain is still a U.S. Senator which means he still has the power to write laws. If he really wants to reach out to conservatives, then why not write a bill that would advance the conservative agenda? He says he's "heard the American people" on the illegal immigration issue right? Why not prove it by introducing a bill that would ban any illegal immigrant from ever having a path to citizenship? This would send the message that no one can waltz across our border, ignore our sovereignty, and break our laws then expect to be rewarded with amnesty. I want to see actions Mr. McCain. Words are cheap. |
|
|
|