Friday, January 25, 2008

About McCain's Conservatism...



Click here to see McCain's conservative record, issue by issue.
Click here to see that McCain's Lifetime ranking from the American Conservative Union is 83% (2005, 80%)
Click here to see a list of conservative and Republican McCain endorsements (and others)
Click here for polls that show how McCain is the only Republican candidate who beats Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups. No other Republican comes within ten points.

11 comments:

g_rob said...

and then email all your conservative friends who listen too closely to Rush Limbaugh.

Stephen said...

...or Hugh Hewitt.

Jeff said...

Conservative attacks on McCain remind me of liberals and Scoop Jackson during the 1970s. In no way was Scoop "conservative" and he was, at one time, the definition of a liberal. Narrow ideological litmus tests, such as those on immigration and campaign finance, are signs of a generational struggle within conservative ranks (and could be--the death rattle of the conservative coalition). This is what happens to ideological movements after a generation or two. I have my doubts about Clinton's ability to fully capitalize on this---but for the first time in my life--we are really experience political realignment. It is a matter of who can re-build a coalition. Exciting times!!

Paul said...

Steve, you know I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but I'm still not seeing it with McCain.
The immigration debacle last year highlighted a few things for me. First, McCain (and others) attempted to bypass debate on the bill. Then he accused opponents of the plan of being nativists. Now he has Juan Hernandez as an advisor to his campaign. Donors to McCain's Reform Institute include a litany of left wing organizations:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004026.php
Then, in a recent debate, he equated drilling in ANWR to destroying the Grand Canyon.

If I'm wrong on any of this stuff, please let me know. This has the potential to be a very enlightening discussion.

Paul said...

I guess the saddest part is that the country is ready to elect Obama or Clinton, two Saul Alinsky socialists.

Stephen said...

Jeff,
I have never liked the idea of a "conservative coalition." The Republican Party can have a coalition, but American conservatism is supposed to be anti-coalition, or anti-interest group generally. I agree with Jeff that ideological litmus tests usually come from people who don't understand the ideology. Exciting times indeed.
Paul,
I don't think you are necessarily wrong about the issues you care about. And I think McCain is dead wrong on some things. I don't really like the idea of a guest-worker program, for instance, and that is still in the plan. I do like the modification that he has made to his plan, (border governors certifying security). I do think that we have to be realistic and face up to the fact that some people--especially the loud angry ones--just don't like immigrants. I personally wouldn't mind if we drove all of the nativists out the party--and there are some. The debate-bypass doesn't bother me. It was a pretty standard parliamentary procedure. The opponents of the bill just wanted a little more time to work up the talk-radio crowd. I really just hate that populist impulse. It is the element within the party that I find myself fighting constantly. I can't speak about Juan Hernandez with any authority. I have never heard of him. As far as the Reform Institute goes, the whole point of the endeavor was to build bipartisan relationships on a host of issues under the banner of "reform." I would expect to see donors who might disagree with McCain on most issues still give him money to push for those particular issues. I also disagree with McCain about ANWR, but in general I agree with his energy platform of expanding nuclear power. So if you ask me about whether I support McCain's energy plan, my answer is yes. Also, assuming that there are any Democrats in either house of congress, ANWR isn't getting drilled. It has become too much of a hot-button issue for them.
Gotta help the wife with the groceries...

dcat said...

Paul --
C'mon. Calling those you disagree with "socialists" (even with the prefatory "Saul Alinsky" attached) is not much better than calling them Nazis. If you cannot come up with real reasons to oppose them, fine, but calling them socialist is to indicate that you don't unbderstand either American politics or socialism. It is idiotic (actually, it's a bit fascistic, except that we've established that such a label is unair)when conservatives resort to the "socialist" accusation against Democrats.

dcat

Paul said...

OK, then. What should I call a person who wants the government to take over the health care industry and seize oil company profits?

Paul said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

dcat said...

paul --
Er, I dunno. Would you call them socialists? And would you say either candidate actually advocates what you have argued that they do? And if they argue as much, is that socialism?
You see, here is who I don't want to hear arguing about others being socialists: Anyone who drives on interstate highways. Or anyone who eats agricultural products. Or anyone (especially) who teaches or has been educated in a public school. And even moreso anyone who has gone to a public university, any one of which in the US is enormously subsidized at the local, state, and national level.
You see, publicly funded highways, publicly funded schools, and especially publicly funded universities are all examples, by fucktarded definitions, of "socialism." But I assume we are not fucktards. Then again, I may overestimate my audience here.
So I'll make it more clear: Anyone who believes Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is a socialist is demonstrably an idiot.

dcat

Paul said...

Bravo. I stated above that this discussion had the chance to be enlightening, but then Derek shot those chances to hell by calling me an idiot and a "fucktard" (?). Really? Did you really say that? Is that the best word you could come up with? I mean, wait...what? You didn't use a made-up word, did you? Wow, I feel like I'm back in the third grade here.

You really can tell when you touch a nerve with people because they get all bent out of shape reacting to what you say. Here, I called Derek's precious democratic candidates, HC and BO, socialists and he responds with a)"anytime the government spends any money on roads or education, it's socialism" and b)calling me a goofy, 3rd grade playground name.

I guess we have different definitions of socialism, that's all. But I wouldn't expect a liberal to know what the definition of socialism is because they are still trying to figure out what the definition of "is" is.
HC has promised to nationalize health care and wouldn't you know it, she actually tried to do it once upon a time. You do remember that don't you? I also posted a youtube video of her promising to seize oil company profits. Now she is threatening to garnish the wages of anyone who doesn't want to buy health care so that she can pay for "universal coverage" (code for socialized medicine). Am I getting through to you? As for BO, his voting record is almost identical to HC's. Both of them are admirers of Saul Alinsky and follow his model for "revolution." Where did I misspeak?

When the government builds a highway system it falls under the general welfare and common defense clause of the preamble. When they fund education that also falls under the general welfare clause. As for agricultural subsidies, I disagree with them. It's a way to buy votes in farm states. So I have two choices, stop eating or accept them.

So, in review:
Roads= good! general welfare (we all get access), common defense (you know, moving tanks, planes, troops)
Education= good! general welfare, lots of scientific discoveries, etc.
Government taking oil company profits= bad, socialism, and no more oil because profit motive gone.
Government taking control of the medical industry= bad, socialism

I'll refrain from saying what I want to say about you in parting. But let's just say it sounds like "buck tooth."