House of Eratosthenes

How important is it that the guy in the White House has the letter “R” after his name, really? If he’s just going to do a bunch of democrat stuff. If there’s no advantage to what he’s going to do in the War on Terror. Even if he says the right stuff, when you know he isn’t going to deliver on it any better than Ted Kennedy himself. What’s the point?

Better Supreme Court appointments? Feh. As I’ve said before, our liberal Supreme Court justices appointed by actual democrats, have been relatively harmless. It’s the ones who were nominated by Republicans, and then turned around and fooled everybody, who’ve been responsible for the real damage.

Don’t miss Pam’s article in Pajamas Media about this problem we’re having…

Despite his impressive speech at CPAC and equally impressive roster of endorsements, John McCain still has to convince core conservatives in the Republican Party of his sincerity and willingness to work with them. This includes Newt Gingrich, who told Laura Ingraham on Fox’s O’Reilly Factor last Friday, “I don’t think we should have this leader principle that whoever gets to be the head of the Republican Party, we should all salute. … I’ll reserve the right to oppose [McCain] on issues where I think he’s fundamentally wrong.”

What’s interesting is that while intra-party rivalries are to be expected in any primary campaign, the rift in the Republican Party goes much deeper than “vote for the guy I prefer to win the nomination.” Democrats, while they side with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, are focused on winning the White House in November, no matter who goes on to run against the Republican.

The name of their game is often party over principle. In fact, back in 2004, Kerry was not the first choice for many Democrats, but they considered a vote for him to be a vote against George W. Bush — holding your nose at the ballot box and all that.

Will Republicans en masse put principle over party in November? It’s a valid question, seeing as on Super Tuesday there were 14 million votes cast by Democrats, compared to only 8 million by Republicans, indicating a crisis of conscience among the GOP. And core Republicans pride themselves on their support of certain principles, including limited government, pro-life, strong national defense, and the Second Amendment. While John McCain falls into line with many of these, a good number of conservatives think his willingness to “reach across the aisle” means more than simply working with Democrats on key issues — it’s working against Republicans. Charges of RINO (Republican in Name Only) are frequently uttered in the same sentence as McCain’s name. The old “maverick” meme rears its ugly head yet again.

The resounding examples that come up frequently are McCain-Feingold, (failed) McCain-Kennedy, and McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts several years ago.

Newt certainly speaks for me, and for common sense as well. Think about it. There is NO down-side to this.

Whatever we stand to lose policy-wise by opposing McCain…the War on Terror…the Supreme Court…we’ve lost it anyway. It’s already long-gone. And we’ve deserved to lose it, because this cultural climate has been allowed to continue for too long, unopposed, where bumper-sticker slogans are more important than upholding beliefs and principles, where agreement is more valuable than clarity, and people get mired down into a “my side versus the other side” mindset.

Well now there’s even a positive aspect to this. If conservatives were all about my side versus the other side, there wouldn’t be a split, would there? How to explain this? Well, I’m sure that as long as there’s a perceptible split, the “Republicans are racists” card will be played a lot because it’s unavoidable that there are deeply held principles at work…and there are people out there with big cameras and microphones whose job it is (as they see it) to make sure any principles they call out on the conservatives, are dark and ugly ones — even if such observations clash with truth.

A principle, on this subject, is a value system you keep in place even if a bunch of people disagree with you about it.

And one thing about the conservative movement that has never stopped being appealing, is that the conservative principles are, by nature, positive. People are capable of great and wonderful things. And before people actually do the great and wonderful things, most of them are worthy of trust.

They don’t need some phony re-interpretation of Christianity to do right by each other. They don’t even need altruism. Pure and naked self interest will do fine. Support your neighbor’s right to keep his own property, and you will end up better off. In short, conservatism is all about…friendship. It’s about the stuff that was beaten into our heads when people my age were children: Don’t worry about sex or skin color, all the kids on the playground are your friends, or can be.

Some of those kids grew up and decided in adulthood, they should go back to paying attention to skin color. And now they go by the name “liberals.” Must have forty-percent this…must have twenty-five-percent that.

I’m sorry to notice in 2008, we wouldn’t know what a “Constitution” was if it walked up and kicked most of us square in the ass. I’ve heard the words “trample the Constitution” used so many times in the last seven years. Near as I can figure, the phrase has something to do with finding out someone is doing something that’s against the law and/or could hurt thousands of people, by methods and techniques that would not be approved-of by the person who got busted.

Folks, that isn’t what a Constitution is. You don’t have a right to do illegal things. From conspiring to set off dirty bombs, to smoking pot. You don’t have a right to ’em, and that’s why we make them illegal.

What the Constitution really is, is something we’re losing. Within the last hundred years, we had a right to keep all our money. And then the Constitution got amended. And then we had a right to transact intrastate commerce free of interference by Congress. That one got changed through shenanigans and skullduggery on the Supreme Court. And now a bunch of people want to “change” what’s left. We’re already perilously close to losing our rights to the thoughts in our own heads, with the hate crime legislation that’s popping up like dandelions. What else do we own, if we don’t own that?

Once we’ve paid our taxes, in theory we get to keep what’s left. Maybe that’s what these changers want to change. Our feds, or our state or county or municipal governments decide there’s a crisis of some kind…and people are on foot patrol, knocking on doors, asking “citizens” how much cash they have in their wallets, bank accounts, stock portfolios. That kind of change?

The conservatism I know is all about protecting people from that. People — own the government. What little of it there is supposed to be. Not the other way around.

And John McCain will not support that. John McCain has a new friend in the beltway…or a potential new friend…and whatever he said the day before, changes. He’s become the very picture of a politician who shouldn’t be trusted.

If the United States isn’t ready to become just another Europe-Lite nation full of “subjects” and not citizens, where we have to pay global-warming taxes to drive anywhere and let inspectors into our houses to make sure we’ve paid usury taxes on our television sets — it’s not to late to pull a Lieberman, and nominate a real “maverick.”

The message behind a vote for McCain is that nobody on the conservative side cares about anything beside that letter “R”.

The message behind a vote for someone else is there are, as Sean Hannty calls them, “core beliefs.” The conservative split has become painful and awkward for a lot of people who aren’t conservatives. They don’t think we should be having them, and yet if we didn’t have them, a McCain nomination would not be an issue.

The message behind a vote for McCain is that nobody on the conservative side cares about anything beside that letter “R”.

Disagree. Vehemently. For reasons previously stated. And your “dirty bombs and pot smoking” analogy is just a wee bit over the top, Morgan…specifically when you include those two actions in the same sentence.

The ol’ saw about horses and water came to mind as I read this post. (or the variation on that theme, which concerned a whore, a man name Walter, and thinking. Heard that one?) (insert smiley-face icon here.)
- Buck | 02/21/2008 @ 15:46
Perhaps I’ll start down my road of enlightenment someday before November.

But the first step has to be something bad Obama’s gonna do, that you can guarantee me Mac wouldn’t do. Or something good Obama wouldn’t do that you can guarantee me Mac would do.

And I don’t think you can deliver on either one of those. So far, over the years, I can’t think of one thing Teddy K has wanted that McCain didn’t provide. In about half the time I can get a fresh-baked pizza on my doorstep.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2008 @ 21:03
But the first step has to be something bad Obama’s gonna do, that you can guarantee me Mac wouldn’t do.

Obama is on the record as saying “I’ll negotiate and/or talk to anyone once I’m in office,” including, but not limited to, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and most recently, Castro. I’ll guarantee you McCain won’t do that. My guarantee is worth almost as much as your “prove it” rejoinder… coz neither you nor I can offer ANY such guarantees. But realistically, Morgan, we both know McCain has more respect for the institution of the presidency than The Messiah, in this space, at least.

And…regarding things Teddy wants that McCain hasn’t delivered, wanna talk about Iraq, as in “getting the troops out” vs. The Surge? I seem to recall Teddy saying something to the effect of “End the Occupation!” In so many words, of course…

Just two examples, right off the top of my head. There would be more if I chose to google a bit.
- Buck | 02/23/2008 @ 16:46
Great points, Buck. And I’m certainly open to the argument.

Any port in a storm, and all that. And we are certainly caught out in some dark, stormy seas.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2008 @ 00:56

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Pull a Lieberman, or Throw It InThursday, February 21st, 2008

Pull a Lieberman, or Throw It In
Thursday, February 21st, 2008