2008 elections

The conservative blame game

Drew McKissick — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:22:01 -0500

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum, but you can't prove it by the space between the ears of some in the Republican Party today, or in the conservative movement for that matter.

Take columnist Kathleen Parker for example, who in her most recent column lamented the presence of "oogedy-boogedy" religious conservatives within the Republican Party and derisively referred to them as the "low brow" crowd.

She went on to suggest that such people should just keep their faith to themselves; essentially saying they should either cease to have their values informed by their faith, or cease to cast ballots on the basis of their values. Of course, this seems rather selective, as one could just as easily ask her and others in the socially liberal camp to do the same.

Given that an AP/IPSOS poll demonstrated that 40% of the Republican coalition was comprised of evangelical conservatives, (Parker's "low brow", "oogedy boogedy" set), and, assuming she's interested in GOP electoral success, it would seem that math isn't exactly her strong suit.

One should note that the cultural views she seems to have a problem with are nothing new in this country. In fact, they've been around since before this was a country. What's new, (or newer), in American politics are the cultural liberals who demand that people (via government) actually sanction their behavior.

Keep in mind that while the GOP was busy losing the recent elections, gay marriage was rejected in three more states, (even California) - an issue that has won thirty out of thirty-one elections across America. Not exactly a national outcry for social liberalism.

By the way, Ms. Parker is the same "conservative" columnist that was celebrated by the mainstream media for her denigration of Governor Sarah Palin. The same who, just a week prior to the election, penned probably one of the most sexist columns written by a supposed "conservative" woman that I've ever seen, in which she suggested that the only reason McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate was because he had the hots for her.

Anyone this vapid no longer merits serious attention.

Then there's Mike Huckabee, who's pushing a new book that takes some real classy potshots at other members of the conservative movement, especially libertarians who happen to believe in small government and sound money. This is the same strain of American thought that Reagan once referred to as the "heart and soul" of conservativatism.

Of course Huckabee's probably the guy who's most responsible for making John McCain the Republican nominee this year, not exactly a big help to the movement.

And let's not forget those from the McCain campaign itself (OK, not exactly a bastion of conservatism) that committed some of the most blatant C.Y.A. in recent election history by trying to blame Sarah Palin for McCain's loss while the ballots were still being counted. The anonymous smears attempting to portray her as some backwoods rube where not just low class, but telling as to where this crowd was coming from to begin with.

What everyone needs to understand is that the biggest part of the GOP base is conservative all across the board, meaning in terms of social policy, economic policy, foreign policy and the size and scope of government.

Moreover, the same can be said of the American people. When you break it all down to its constituent parts, a consistent conservative approach to government, economics, taxes, foreign policy and culture is where the largest plurality of the American people are...and where the GOP needs to be.

Any one conservative group that calls for the others to be subordinated and/or assigned blame for Republican loses is not only wrong, but ignoring reality.

The blame for the GOP's current situation lies with those that have forgotten this truth. Those that went on spending binges with tax-dollars that would make drunken sailors blush; those who pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens; those who decided to subordinate social and cultural issues in elections to the point where some conservatives wondered what was in it for them anymore.

These are the people who don't deserve to be anywhere near a leadership position again.

In the end, this is all a tempest in a teapot fomented by some very small people doing the equivalent of jumping up and down and yelling "look at me!" They won't matter.

But the conservative movement will matter. It will go on, and it will grow. It will do so precisely because it's rooted and grounded in the reality of the human condition and the values upon which our country was founded.

We believe that the chief ends of government are to protect individual life, liberty and property. We believe in lower taxes, sound fiscal policy, smaller government, strong national defense and the traditional culture and values that have made the United States the greatest nation on the face of God's green Earth.

So to those who would seek to marginalize one faction of conservatives at the expense of another, let me just say that there are more of us than there are of you. Meaning there are more of us in this party who would consider ourselves "comprehensive conservatives". And we're not going anywhere.

Election post-mortem: lemons to lemonade

Drew McKissick — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:28:41 -0500

As the old saying goes, "when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade".

Herewith, a list of some of the lemons from the recent election and the lemonade they could offer.

Election return lemons: the race is over. Obama won. The liberals have two out of three branches of government...with the third (the judiciary) hanging in the balance. Those are pretty big lemons.

Lemonade: conservatives have an opportunity to re-focus our message on our principles and define ourselves in stark relief to the inevitable liberal overreach...and then be positioned to catch those folks in the middle who will soon come down with a case of buyer's remorse.

Strategy lemons: McCain's strategy of "reaching out" failed, (reliable red states turning blue?). Lemonade: "reach-across-the-aisleism" as a strategy is now thoroughly discredited. Good riddance.

Our path is clear: sharpen the differences between ourselves and liberals. Give the public reason to support us by offering a clear, principled vision for conservative governance that applies our principles to the problems of the day. As Ronald Reagan suggested, we have to hold our conservative banner high and define the differences between ourselves and the opposition in bright, bold colors - not pale pastels.

More lemonade: we got Sarah Palin out of the deal.

Tech lemons: we got our tail whipped with new political applications of existing technology. This is important because the Republican Party apparatus serves as the political vehicle of choice for the conservative movement. But the vehicle needs servicing - big time. The other guys are driving a Corvette, and we're in an Oldsmobile. Time to upgrade.

Lemonade: we can do like the Japanese used to do; take a competitor's existing product and make it better, fast and cheaper...then take their market share.

Lemon: McCain ignored the social issues and lost. Lemonade: he lost in large part because he ignored the social issues.

Socially conservative issues faired well at the ballot box...demonstrating that people do vote on the basis of issues when they are actually AWARE of the issues, (note to McCain staff).

Amazingly, we went through pretty much an entire presidential campaign where our guy did little to nothing to highlight the culturally offensive positions of his opposition. Here you had a guy that's been rated as the single most liberal member of the US Senate with issue positions that weren't just to the left of the American public, but to the left of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, and it was left to third party groups to raise the issues. Go figure.

If the public doesn't hear the candidate himself make these distinctions, they don't have as much credibility. And, for whatever reason, McCain wouldn't make an effort. It was like taking a knife to a gunfight. When you've got clear advantages on key, salient social issues, you USE them.

Meanwhile an amendment to ban gay marriage passes, (of all places), in California - and by the same margin as Obama's national popular vote total, 52% to 48%.

Economic lemons: the liberals will now be completely in charge of spending. Lemonade: the liberals will now be completely in charge of spending.

We lost an election when the economy seems ready to head even farther downhill...and you can bet it will when it gets its pending dose of unbridled liberal economics. Now they'll have to deal with the political consequences.

More lemonade: The 2010 elections will set the table for the redistricting that will follow the next national census, resulting in new lines for congressional, state house and state senate seats that will impact the political landscape for a decade. If there's a good time to bounce back, that's it.

Legislative lemons: the liberals want to raise taxes, kill conservative talk-radio, end secret ballots for union elections, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act"; and that's just for starters. Lemonade: These are all issues that were NOT highlighted in the campaign, (either by them, or our own candidate unfortunately). Not the kind of "change" that most independents voted for. We can oppose with abandon and be there waiting for them when they "come home".

And the best lemonade of all? We have another stunning example of what doesn't work; and several historical examples of what does - which should make our decision about what to do next a good bit easier.

Divide and Conquer?

Gary Gore — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:26 -0400

At least in the state of Pennsylvania, a new poll suggests that the divisive primary season for the Dems may bode well for the fortunes of Republican hopeful John McCain.

As reported by Cybercast News, a significant 1 in 5 supporters of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton state that they will vote for John McCain if their candidate does not become the Democrat nominee.

The significant number of potential defectors underscores how divisive the Democratic primary has been.

Democrats won Pennsylvania in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, but it was a competitive state in both election cycles. McCain, meanwhile, has touted his appeal to swing voters.

"Pennsylvania is a must-win state for a Democratic presidential nominee," Nathan Gonzalez, political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, told Cybercast News Service. "If there is a significant weakness for a Democrat in Pennsylvania, it could indicate a weakness in Ohio or other key states."

Even a few months ago, the presidential race looked like a major uphill climb for any Republican candidate. But recent polls suggest a toss-up between McCain and either Democratic candidate.

Obama and Clinton both have many negatives, which doesn't make the Pennsylvania poll too surprising, said Doris Graber, a political science professor at the University of Illinois.

"Obama is very liberal, more liberal than we've seen on the campaign trail. Also, there is still racism out there," Graber told Cybercast News Service. "Hillary, we've known all along, has strong supporters. But there are also a lot of people who would never vote for her. There is some antipathy from the Clinton years. Some wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman."

Graber believes it is "almost a certainty" that the Obama-Clinton battle will be decided at the Democratic National Convention, which could drive a wedge through the party.

"Democratic voters could be persuaded not to vote for a candidate with vulnerabilities," she continued. "A vote for McCain wouldn't be that difficult. He does appeal to the middle."

Come convention time, even if these two can put on their best shows of loyalty for the sake of their party, if the wounds are too deep and the words have been too harsh, how are the campaign loyalists going to be able to back the "other" candidate, when it does come to that?

And as many negatives are raised and as much dirt is brought to the surface in this race, are those on the political fence going to be able to vote for either of these potential nominees when that time comes, if they see McCain as an attractive, viable alternative?

Time tells all.

Florida Aftermath - The Reagan Torch is Passed to McCain

Gary Gore — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:27:11 -0500

Hardly!

Some interesting details regarding the McCain "base" can be found in the Fox News Florida Exit Poll.

Of particular note, would be the data concerning the issues of Illigal Immigration and Life.

I would also have to say that the final portion that reflects the Sunshine State's voter political-ideological affiliation, says a lot about the McCain "coalition".

Who can beat the Clinton Machine?

AndrewMac — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:06:36 -0500

After my last post, which got stunning reviews; I thought I would follow up with another non-controversial subject.

Who in the Republican party can beat the Clintons? Now I know the gut reaction is going to be Anyone and Everyone should beat the Clintons, but I am more interested in who can actually beat them?

Huckabee doesn't seem to have the pull with the centrists. Romney doesn't have the pull with values voters. Giuliani, well, I'm less inclined to believe that he is a real candidate for President; I think he just likes a good vacation in Florida or something. McCain doesn't really seem to have conservative Republican support. Oh and most of you hate Ron Paul.

That being said, what is the winning ticket against a Hillary Clinton for President and Tom Vilisack for VP? Can Romney/Huckabee bury the hatchet? Will Huckabee's talk of amending the constitution sink them in the center or Romney's faccade' of being a human being instead of a plastic politician? At a time when the country appears to be leaning slightly to the left, and people are unsatisfied with the incumbent government - this may be the perfect opportunity for the Clintons to take Washington by storm.

Now, consider this.

A third party run by Mike Bloomberg, is the best opportunity that the country has to avoid another Clinton decade, and let me break it down for you why.

Ross Perot is often cited as taking the Presidency away from G H.W. Bush - because he ran as a center-right leaning populist. It is a known fact that many of Mike Bloomberg's social positions are center left, socially he is liberal, which means he will challenge the Democratic nod, whoever it is, even in traditionally Democratic states. Mike Bloomberg could actually win New York and California.

The way I see it, you need Mike Bloomberg to run, lest you face the Clinton Machine by yourselves, and do you really want another decade of that?

Sign the petition to encourage Mike Bloomberg to run - even if it is just an Anyone But Clinton vote.