To My Fellow Conservatives: If You Hate Yourself, Vote McCain!

1. The two party system stinks. We need a strong third party. In order to do that, one of the two current partys most likely will split. I would rather it form from the Republican party than the Democratic party.
2.I Agree there.
3.If a candidate can get through his career without knifing a few friends, he's doing better than most. I don't hold this against McCain...as long as he is getting his back scratched as well.
4.No respectable citizen should expect his vote to be pandered for. In Michigan and Ohio, McCain said the auto jobs are not coming back and that they need to branch out to other non-union sectors. Hillary and Obama said We can get those jobs back. Obvious pandering really stinks.
5.I agree however few presidential candidates satisfy this argument.Who is there to vote for?
6.One of the POTUS prime jobs is to elect life terms to SCOTUS and other judge positions. Important as that is, 4 years of McCain appointments has to be better than 4 years of Hillary or Obama.
7. See number 4.
8. Yes imigration is a mess. No easy fix there. The fence idea is a absurd. We need to get real with this issue.
9. Unfortuneately I live in a state where urban votes carry the state. My rural home means that my vote means diddly.
10.Good Point although this could be to USA's advantage as McCain could have element of surprise. One second all is well and BAM....North Korea is wiped from the planet.

Overall I don't disagree with your comments, I just feel we need to pick right battles. Not sure if we are ready as a nation for Hillary or Obama. It will be interesting to say the least.

"we need to pick the right battles". I also am a evangelical Christian who longs for a new Reagan. But that's what we need--a new Reagan. Conservatism won because Reagan won. He's the only one who ever got elected. Was it him or the ideals. Conservative thought is valid but it needs a salesman I think. And no new Reagan has arisen with the humor and courage. Who is the next? The conservatives in Congress amde a mess and Bush carries the conservative mantle(although he is not one of us) and can't explain or defend what he believes. We need to slow down the deterioration until a new breed arises--so I will pull the lever for McCain. If he chooses a solid VP that I can support. I think he needs us so he will compromise on some things and a comprehensive immigration bill is dead no matter who is pres. The peopel stood up and will stand again against amnesty in any form.

"we need to pick the right battles". I also am a evangelical Christian who longs for a new Reagan. But that's what we need--a new Reagan. Conservatism won because Reagan won. He's the only one who ever got elected. Was it him or the ideals. Conservative thought is valid but it needs a salesman I think. And no new Reagan has arisen with the humor and courage. Who is the next? The conservatives in Congress amde a mess and Bush carries the conservative mantle(although he is not one of us) and can't explain or defend what he believes. We need to slow down the deterioration until a new breed arises--so I will pull the lever for McCain. If he chooses a solid VP that I can support. I think he needs us so he will compromise on some things and a comprehensive immigration bill is dead no matter who is pres. The peopel stood up and will stand again against amnesty in any form.

It's a real pickle--no doubt about it. With the exception of the border fence--which I STRONGLY support--I agree with most of what you wrote (assuming that the "nuke the Norks" suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, as I'm sure it was--FUNNY though!)

On the SCOTUS question, though, I honestly believe that McCain would be only marginally better than either of the Dems. Seriously. McCain's Warren Rudman gave us Justice Souter. Is he really better than Ginsburg, e.g.? Think about it.

A liberal nomination by President Obama would mobilize opposition from the right. A liberal nomination from President McCain would sail right through.

So, I actually believe that we are better off with Hillary! or Barack as President. Republicans will not opposes their own President (with the exception of a few "mavericks"--ironically!), but they will enthusiastically oppose Prez Barack or Hillary!

I don't want Hillary! or Barack as my President, of course, but pushing a McCain candidacy is short term thinking. I'm not even sure that he'd be better than either of them, frankly, but even if he were, the price we would pay for supporting him would be the permanent collapse of conservatism as a political force.

Is that worth it? Really? Lose conservatism forever, in exchange for a President who despises us, and whom we will more reluctant to oppose than we would Hillary! or Barack.

Neither choice is pretty. Either Obama or Hillary! will be a Jimmy-Carter-level disaster, though, and with a good CONSERVATIVE candidate we'll get back the White House in 2012.

Voting for McCain today, is voting for permanent minority status.

Four years in the wilderness vs. a decade or more. Which is better? Everyone has to make up his own mind.

My decision is made.

Welcome!

I take your point and understand why a conservative would pull the lever for McCain, although--with all due respect--I urge you to reconsider.

McCain has contempt for you. Eagleburger, one of his aides, thinks that you are a "serious problem" (as mentioned in the article).

Elect McCain, and conservatism is dead. Dead.

The GOP establishment is anti-conservative. McCain is anti-conservative. You are tempted to hold your nose (as I have done since Reagan left office) and vote for the guy with the "R" after his name, but think it through.

How will we mobilize opposition to the policies of a liberal Republican President?

Once conservatism is permanently rebranded as "liberalism lite" (a process nearly completed by George W. Bush, with his "LBJ on steroids" spending), the next conservative "salesman," the next Reagan will be no more welcome in the GOP than Reagan himself was in 1976.

Think it through, my friend. Is THAT really worth four years of an anti-conservative in the White House--the PERMANENT dissolution of the Reagan coalition?

Support true conservatives at the grassroots, get involved in promotin the next generation of conservative leaders, but think very carefully before supporting McCain.

Yeah the N Korea was tongue in cheek. Couldn't resist it though.

A friend of mine in law enforcement tells me laws don't prevent crime. Laws redistribute crime. One example. Drug dealers used to deal from homes and cars until the law allowed for possesions to be taken if caught dealing from these places. Drug dealers then move to hotel rooms, apartment rentals and street corners. It forced criminals to get creative. A border fence wont stop the illegals, but simply force them to get creative in the way they cross. I think it's a dead end idea.

Now back to the McCain issue. I can see your point with SCOTUS and maybe the gamble will pay off. A good grassroots movement is what needs to take place NOW as well as after the election if we want another Reagan in 2012. I am glad you have made your choice already. I will definetly have to keep researching this a little deeper. It's just too bad my vote won't count, but that's another issue.

who he chooses as VP. That will show if he respects us enough to want to compromise. And he has the other guy--one of us whose name escapes me--advising him on judicial appointments so I feel OK there. If he tries to appoint a poor choice there will be an uprising just as there was when Bush tried his friend before Alito. If McCain screws up there will be plenty of time and plenty of energy to help him take the right path.

But a more important question is who is ever going to be able to win an election as a conservative? Who do you see? Reagan was there for a long time before he won. I see nobody with that ability now. The faces of conservatism have been demonized(sometimes by their own actions) so this could be a long wait. If McCain does the right thing as VP I urge you to think about that. No reason for further discussion until we see that transpire. I want to see the future. McCain for McCain's sake is a losing proposition but he can be part of building the next conservative majority.

Another fear--the economy will improve and Iraq will improve under the next administartion. The economy is self correcting and no democrat is going to raise taxes significantly in a down economy. No dem is going to abruptly withdraw from Iraq and no dem is going to sign Kyoto.

I knew you were joking about the Norks, of course. My wife is a naturalized US Citizen who was born and raised in South Korea (we met at church, in the US, not in Korea), and I would welcome a bomb that took out the Nork leadership (especially that evil little teletubby, Kim Jong Il), while leaving the population unscathed. The North Korean suffer daily at the hands of their communist master. Awful, awful stuff.

It's true the laws don't reduce crime. Laws are just words on paper. ENFORCING laws is the only way to reduce crime, and that really does work. I grew up in New York City in the 1970's (a truly wretched time and place). It was so bad that there were TV specials teaching people the right way to get mugged. I kid you not. "Don't resist. Don't look the mugger in the eye. Etc."

The idea was that everyone was a future crime victim, so you'd might as well get used to the idea. The criminologists of the time said that crime could not be reduced, only moved around.

There were even arguments that since crime was the result of systemic oppression and racism, that crime victims really had it coming. Criminals were thought in some quarters to have a right to commit crime (sound familiar? think "La Raza" in re the Reconquista).

Then came Rudy. He hired more police, and crime went down in real terms. It was not just moved around.

The border fence will only move illegal immigrants around until it is an actual FENCE, not just a few pickets sticking out the ground here and there.

Liberals avoid change by undermining real reform, and then saying "See that? It didn't work. Told ya so." Don't fall prey to that trope.

You're probably right that further discussion is moot at this point, so I'll keep it brief.

I think that the Veep choice is largely irrelevant (per my most recent post to the main blog), but I understand your way of thinking.

A vote for McCain is a vote to bury the Reagan Revolution. It's the same kind of short-term, immediate gratification thinking that has allowed the country club types to re-take the GOP.

In retrospect, I may have erred in voting for Bush II. That whole "compassionate conservatism" nonsense was a red flag, but I ignored it. Now we have John McCain.

I should have seen it coming.

Clear-headed thinking all around.

As for the need to pick the right battles...why is now not time for the anti-McCain battle? Won't it be an even more difficult battle if delayed down the road?

Do not trust anything McCain may say, promise, or compromise.

As you know, I'm with you 100% on McCain. I think my next blog entry is going to be on my proposed slogan for McCain's general election campaign:

"Reagan's Dead. Let's bury him. McCain '08"


It would fit great on a button!!!

McCain definitely won't appoint a true constructionist to the Supremes, since a true constructionist would vote to overturn his pride and joy, McCain-Feingold.

Unfortunately, the more the current Obama situation gets looked at, allowing him to become President might be too much. I've got some more revelations about his 'pastor' and their philosophy in a post I made a couple of nights ago at my place. Scary stuff.

I'm hacked off that one of these three jerks is going to be the one signing my White House retirement letter when my time in the Navy is up in 2010. That won't be a certificate that I will proudly display near my shadowbox.

The question though is which battle do we pick?

It's an interesting situation. Do conservatives fight the battle against a McCain White House in which maybe a third strong conservative party can emerge seperate from the Republican party OR do we fight the battle with ObamaHillary White House in which a stronger Republican party can emerge and no third party will exist.

A left leaning Republican as POTUS may be what we need for a strong conservative party to break free from the pack. As Norman said voting for Bush jr might have been a mistake or maybe it works to a third party breakout advantage. McCain could be the back breaking straw to get a grassroots party going. But then GoBlue has a point in that there is no strong leader to emerge (at least in the public eye) to push a third party into the mainstream.

It is an interesting situation to say the least.

Hacked off indeed. The sad part is that all the retirees since Reagan are in the same boat as you. Especially during Clinton's reign. A McCain signature would at least be better than Clinton (Mr or Mrs), although we all agree probably only by a nose.

I hate to keep beating this horse but I'll give it one more go.

I don't think a fully completed fence will fail because it's being undermined by liberals, I think it will fail because it will be undermined by Mexicans. Really...they will dig a tunnel, or get a ladder.

Anyway, I'll let the horse die now as I do respect your position and understand the idea behind it. Yes we need reform, but we need reform that will work.

So far I have enjoyed the Blogatorium and will keep checking back. When TH fixed their bug on the "The talk of the article" section a couple of weeks ago, the threads lost some of their appeal. I liked it better when it was broke. Now I spend more time wandering around trying to find something to comment on and it really took some of the punch out of it. This has been more enjoyable.

I agree that the horse is at least nearly dead, but I'll beat it once or twice to see if I can get at least an involuntary twitch.

Liberals ALWAYS say "it's pointless, it's hopeless, it'll never work" when something will work that they don't like. They said it in the 70's about urban crime; they said it in the 80's about Reagan's assault on the Soviet Empire; and they said it in the 90's about Welfare Reform (before Bubba's finger caught the wind direction, and he jumped on the train as he was leaving the station).

They're saying it now about the border (and myriad other subjects), because they want new voters, legal or illegal. The country club blue bloods who now run the GOP want cheap, easily exploitable labor. So it's no surprise that progress on border control has been, shall we say, "slow."

Heck, even ENFORCING the laws already on the books would probably solve 80%-90% of the problem. A border fence would be the icing on the cake.

Liberals in the US and the Middle East predicted that the Israeli border fence would be a failure; it has in fact been a stunning success.

That's the liberal two-step. 1. Say it won't work. 2. When it works, say it doesn't matter (or, better still, just ignore it).

Those who think that border enforcement won't work would have a stronger case if it has ever actually been TRIED.

Till then, we'll never know.

Cheers!

I think I saw the horse's leg move a little so another whack should put her down for good.

I agree with you on the whole enforcing the law part. Use the fence money for more manpower. Like you said, Gulliani lowered crime by enforcing the law through more manpower.

Sure a fence might slow the flow but is it enough of an offset to pay for the fence.
Besides the fact that Mexicans will still find a way to cross, another reason this will fail is because of red tape. Structures require maintenance and upkeep. The fence could work one year and then go into disrepair the next because of budget issues and red tape. It all depends on who is in power at the time. Cut here, spend there kind of thing. You think it's having a hard time getting off the ground, if it ever does...imagine how hard it will be keeping up and running.

Okay the leg stopped moving now.

. . . dead now.

I don't reject your premises; I just think that they lead to a different conclusion than you do.

Honest people of good will can and frequently do disagree.

Maybe I'll do a entry on that. I can bash McCain from yet ANOTHER angle! Cool . . .

I enjoy the back and forth with you, and hope you continue to enjoy the blog.

Cheers!

Yes I am enjoying the blog very much. You keep things interesting and enjoyable. As you probably know, I have no issues with the McCain bashing. It was an interesting mix on Burt's column today.

I'll be off for a few days but will frequent the Blogatorium soon I am sure.

Hope you have a Happy Pascha Sunday.

by the compassionate conservative crap that Bush flouted. Conservatism by definition is the compassionate viewpoint. I don't know of anybody who was excited by Bush in 2004 but the Dems keep giving us no choice. If the dems had given us Biden I would have considered him over Mccain--even knowing the faults he has and McCain has. But alas--Gore, Kerry, Obama or Clinton.

I hated that "compassionate conservatism" palaver. As you say, conservatism is by its very nature "compassionate."

The GOP is like a mischievous child, who keeps pushing Mom and Dad as far as he can . . . until he's called out on it.

After Reagan (9 out of 10 on the conservative scale), we got Bush 41 (maybe a 7, maybe), then Dole (a 6, at best), followed by Bush 43 (about a 5), and now McCain (no more than a 2).

No mas! Enough is enough. A vote for McCain is, in the words of "Greg B, SD," a vote to "p*ss" on Reagan's grave.

The survival of conservatism is paramount.