Some sobering words from Rush Limbaugh on his show today:
Should you start treating Obama the way they treated Bush? It worked for 'em, when everybody in the world thought that it wouldn't. It worked for 'em. I noticed Charles Krauthammer on the Fox All-Stars said, "Yeah, it did work for them but we should not do it. Republicans ought not do this." Why, if it worked? The sad thing is, it obviously did. It did not hurt them. All this insane rage and anger, all of these personal attacks... I mean, writing books and movies about assassinating Bush and to have them critically acclaimed! To wish for defeat of the United States in the war on terror, and countless other things I can't even recall now. I just said, "Human nature is such that this is not going to be rewarded," but it was.
Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just the power and the charismatic demagoguery of Obama who did not come across as angry. But regardless, we lost, and we are hip deep in doo-doo. We have the most radical leftist extremist disguised as something much tamer and milder, who is insisting on putting an imprint on this country such as it has never had. You think the Great Society and all that stuff was bad and you think Jimmy Carter was bad? These people are going to look at that as kindergarten, Romper Room. They're going to overreach and they're going to destroy a lot of things; and eventually... Those of you who have kids and grandkids, the primary source of your concern is, "What kind of country are my kids going to grow up in? Where will be their opportunity? Is their opportunity going to rest on calling the government agency? Oh, no! We don't want that!"
Well, you voted for it! Or not you, but some people did. So how do we stop the Freedom of Choice Act? We don't, not in the legislative bodies. How do we stop Card Check? We don't. We gave up the chance to stop it when we lost the election, when the Republican Party refused to have an identity, when the presidential candidate refused to even campaign on behalf of other Republicans. You could say we deserve what we got and it might be true, but it's still frustrating as hell. So how do we stop this stuff? The Obama team is going to have three million people whose job is going to be to hassle Democrats who don't toe the line in Congress and in the House.
They're going to threaten them with no more fundraising; they're going to threaten them with being heckled at various public appearances. Folks, we haven't run into anything like this before. So what do we do? Do we march in the streets? Do we call Congress? Do we send out e-mails -- and to whom? Do we send it to our side, or do we send it to Chuck Schumer? Do we send it to Harry Reid and so forth? What are they going to do when they hear from a bunch of angry Republicans that are not going to vote for them anyway? It's sad thing to say, but the best option is to let 'em overreach and screw it up on their own. It will happen, but in the meantime, they're going to get a lot done.
That's going to take a long time to undo, and I'm not trying to depress you or be pessimistic. I'm being realistic here. I'm not saying there aren't ways to beat them. Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying our guys do not have the numbers in the House or Senate to do so, even if they're all unified. They may have some parliamentary procedures to play and things like that, but the way I'm hearing everybody talk right now, I think there's going to be a lot of fear of going against Obama anyway. "The first black president is historic! Why, give him a chance," everybody is saying. He's going to run through that window. He's going to run through that window faster than Deion Sanders. We're not even going to see him go through that window when he gets all this stuff done.
The other day I posted a link to Ilya Somin's post at The Volokh Conspiracy about the conservative-libertarian relationship that is questioned after every election. Glenn Reynolds caught an interesting comment from someone named "Splunge." It's rather profound and I'm posting it here in full:
Well, Somin, in the first place I think you need to distinguish between libertarians and mere narcissists. A lot of the latter masquerade as the former, e.g. pretty much the entire crowd at slashdot.org, substantial slices of the Reason potheads, and lawyers eager to fling monkey wrenches into the persecution (I use the word advisedly) of public enemies so long as it brings them personally some bankable fame.
For these folks, "liberty" pretty much means I get what I want, even if it puts everyone else into chains. They believe in "liberty" in the same degenerate sense that a Stalinist believes in "sharing." (Oy! Comrade, if you share with me your bread, I will share with you my slogans to educate your stupid peasant mind.) No one following in the philosophical steps of Madison should give these fraudsters the time of day, let alone indulge the illusion of meaningful alliance. They belong to the party of ego and self.
The remaining core of principled libertarians, who really do believe strongly in live and let live, should be regarded as a militia, not a standing army. They'll rise up when sufficiently enraged to defend their liberty, but between active threats they disperse to their actual lives. I mean, the principled libertarian is nauseated by the necessity of government, and tends to loathe every application of it with which he cooperates. It's like taking out the garbage. Who prolongs it? You run for the dumpster, get it over with as fast as possible.
So the notion of some extended mutual NATO alliance-building, complete with cultural exchanges, is kind of unlikely. True libertarians are going to just zone out, thinking about skiing or sex, during your logistics and strategy meetings. A better idea would be to fashion some kind of skeleton structure of conservatism, into which the libertarian militia could comfortably slot itself when an existential threat arose.
That means, on the conservative side, conservatives have to carry the ball for libertarians when the latter are off-duty. You can't neglect those principles -- small government, property rights -- when you're at peacetime strength, because it's like stripping off the insignia. When you call for libertarian reinforcements, they don't recognize you any more as their ally.
From the libertarian side, there needs to be some appreciation for the fact that conservatives do form the standing army. Libertarians tune in for crises, then drop out and go on with their lives. But somebody has got to keep watch all the time, and that tends to be conservatives. Libertarians need to give them credit for that, make accommodations to some of their reasonable claims for leadership. You can't reserve the right to refuse every marching order, parachute in and out of the party as you please, and expect to wield the same level of leadership as those who are full-time and fully loyal soldiers.
They also need to practise a little strategic deafness. Conservatives like to talk about values and sin a lot, and it grates on the libertarian ear, because the libertarian fears such talk leads to oppressive action. But very often it's just talk, a form of mere community bonding -- ghost stories over the campfire -- that libertarians don't quite get, not being that fond of community bonding in the first place. Frequently enough, if you merely let conservatives have their talk, and nod appreciatively I see what you mean, yes, an interesting and valuable point then they're happy enough.
Well, it's the morning after the big election and the sun still came up. Time to pick up the pieces and move forward. Obama wins, the Dems win Congress but don't get the huge majorities they wanted. Now we have to wait and see just how radical Washington is going to be and whether the Republicans can reinvent themselves with some fresh blood.
Thankfully, this means we can put John McCain out of our lives. Hopefully, he'll retire at terms end and the Republicans will learn that they have to run as Republicans if they want to win office. The MSM and the Peggy Noonan elitists will try and blame this on Palin even though she was the only thing that kept the race reasonably close.
Turns out Karl Rove was right. Dan McLaughlin at RedState points out that his philosophy that you shore up your base, shore up your Red Staters in order to win works. It worked for Bush twice. McCain tried to appeal to moderates and Democrats and look what it got him. He pandered on Amnesty and yet he got a small percentage of the Hispanic vote. Will these lessons be learned?
In the meantime, closer to home, those of us in the alternative media will have to gird our loins and ready for battle on the Fairness Doctrine and other attempts to silence dissenting voices (yes, we're the dissenters now). Should be fun.
Conservative Blue Bloods Unite Behind Their Candidate
When someone uses the word "genius," who comes to mind? Einstein? Newton? Mozart? Rip Taylor?
All great choices, but for me, the first name that pops into my head is Iowahawk. With one blog post he both puts in perspective and puts in their place the so-called "conservative" pundits of the Northeast: Noonan, Brooks, Frum and all the others looking longingly for that precious "seat at the table."
I think one of the benefits of an election like this one is that it, for lack of a less sexist term, separates the men from the boys. Many so-called conservative pundits have basically burned their proverbial draft cards of the movement and either supported Barack Obama or at least bashed the Republican Party for being too conservative. "The era of Reagan is over!" and the like have become familiar mantras. Rush Limbaugh, as you might expect, takes exception to this and has said good riddance to the likes of Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckey, et al. David Frum however, has decided to fire a shot across the EIB bow and blast Rush in his latest blog entry:
If I understand it correctly, the Blankley/Rush argument goes like this:
1) Reagan-style conservatism remains wildly popular with the American people. It was the "blueprint" for winning landslides between 1980 and 1994, and it remains the blueprint today.
2) Yet for some unaccountable mysterious reason, politicians are ignoring this blueprint! There is not a strong elected conservative voice in the country today.
3) So obviously what we need to do is return to the politics of the 1980s - and sit back and collect the rewards.
This argument raises one big question:
Could it be possible that the reason that we lack Reagan-style conservatives in elected office today is that they are having trouble getting elected?
Who are these people? Are you talking about Romney? The guy that couldn't defeat McCain in primaries where anyone, including Democrats, could vote. Who is the last candidate that ran as an unabashed conservative but had at least 1/10 of Reagan's charisma? Who's the last Republican that won the White House on a moderate message? Bush 41 in 1992? Dole? How'd they do?
Frum's argument in the rest of the piece is just downright pedestrian. He dismisses the charge that he's a snob by making the disingenuous argument that Rush and others are calling for a return to "politics of the 1980's." That's like saying supporting the First Amendment is a call for returning to the politics of the 1770's.
Conservativism, libertarianism, Americanism...whatever you want to call it, is hard. It takes a strong mental constitution to stick with it, and many just aren't up to it. Frum is one of those. But as he sips his champagne at Sally Quinn's house, he will be content.
Really good column today from one of the better writers out there, Gerard Baker:
It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don't understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven't spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can't be taken seriously.
So the general expectation was that Mrs Palin would stumble on to the stage in high heels, clutching her sprawling, slightly odd family (five children! how weird), mispronounce the name of the Russian Prime Minister, mutter a few platitudes about God, and disappear for ever to a deafening chorus of sniggers.
No one paid much attention to the fact that she had been elected governor of a state. Or that she got to that office not because, unlike some politicians I could mention, her husband had been there before her, or because she bleated continuously about glass ceilings, but by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government. You don't win a statewide election and enjoy approval ratings of more than 80 per cent without real political talent.
The man who gave us the 1960's movie icon "Midnight Cowboy" and starred alongside Hanoi Jane in the Vietnam movie "Coming Home" is no longer keeping his conservative, pro-American views to himself. Jon Voight came out of the so-called conservative closet a few years back, but slightly under the radar, but recently he fired a shot across the bow with an op-ed piece in the Washington Times that rips Obama and the Democrats to shreds. Hollywood is taking notice and their first instinct: scratch him.
Writer Andrew Klavan thinks the new Batman movie has a cleverly disguised conservative message and that George W. Bush and Batman have quite a bit in common. An interesting argument that makes me want to finally go see the movie.
"I am the Bat!"
MORE: Did a little research and I guess this theory is being debated around the Blogosphere with many liberal sites calling it conservative propaganda while some think this is an overreaction. When I go see it, I'll have the final word. Stay tuned.
While Obama flips and flops his way to the political center, John McCain (already in the center if not just a touch to the left) is looking to move to the right with an economic plan that calls for balancing the budget in four years and reforming entitlement programs. Could be a good first step toward getting conservatives back into the fold.
With the passing of conservative icon Jesse Helms, I refer you to a blog post I wrote three years ago about what I consider his greatest act as Senator.
There's a big writeup in the New Yorker by George Packer called "The Fall of Conservatism." It's another in what will be a series of obituaries written about the Conservative movement with Republicans ready to take it on the chin in Congress in November and a Republican presidential candidate that has worked tirelessly to destroy his own party. It's a common practice to declare a movement dead during a rough patch. Conservatives were quick to declare socialism dead after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the Democrat Congress in 1994, but alas it's made a comeback from Putin to Pelosi.
Everything dies. People, historic buildings (see Las Vegas), ideas...but there certain philosophies or beliefs will always be with us. We give it different names in different eras, but it all comes down to freedom v. slavery. At the dawn of civilization, every man had a choice, would he be a king or a slave. They that became kings were those that were willing to risk their lives to be something other than just another man. They strove for recognition, ego. The slaves on the other hand were not willing to risk their lives for anything and capitulated to the yoke.
The major headline in world history: thousands of years ago, around 99% of the population were slaves. Today, only about a third of the population lives under tyranny. As years go by, this black and white develops shades of grey. We use different names for the two factions: royalists v. (classical) liberals, communists v. capitalists, (modern) liberals v. conservatives, postmodernists v. naturalists, and so on. Conservatism is not dead, it's merely on the ropes and can never totally be knocked out. It'll come back in a different form with different faces (Bobby Jindal?), just as Communism has made its comeback in different forms (the environmental movement). Liberty is hard, slavery is easy. This fact makes the birth and continued life of the United States of America all that more awe-inspiring.
If you want to know what's happening on our college campuses (or if you will "campi") these days, this article on Colorado University is an excellent primer. The school, known for being very left-wing and employing the likes of Ward Churchill is thinking about endowing a chair that would be called "Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy." Not since Dian Fossey went to study the gorillas has scholars been so brave as to delve into the "oddity" that is conservatism. I think David Horowitz has it right:
While he approves of efforts to bolster a conservative presence on campus, Mr. Horowitz fears that setting up a token right-winger as The Conservative at Boulder will brand the person as a curiosity, like "an animal in the zoo." We "fully expect this person to be integrated into the fabric of life on campus," replies Todd Gleeson, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Naturally, the students and faculty are up in arms over the idea and demanding the right to veto it. One student gives their views quite astutely (notice the wording):
Sophomore Marissa Malouff sees the campus as a sort of re-education camp. Sheltered rich kids from out-of-state might come for the snowboarding, but while they’re here they get dunked in a simmering pot of left-wing idealism. And that, in her view, is how it should be.
"They need to learn about social problems and poverty and the type of things liberal professors are likely to talk about," says Ms. Malouff, a Democrat.
There you have it, but the article waits until the very end to show us that the plan is itself a rouse.
In fact, Mr. Peterson said it’s not imperative that the new professor of conservative thought be an actual conservative.
"We hire lots of scholars of the French language," he says, "and they aren't necessarily French."
David Mamet, one of the best screenwriters of the past 20 years has taken to the pages of the Village Voice to proclaim that he is no longer a "brain dead liberal." Huzzah! Many on the Left are already complaining how he has "swung to the right" proving that most on the Left have very poor reading comprehension. Mamet has hardly turned into Ronald Reagan, but he has come around in certain areas. Let me expound:
A big push for Mamet came from listening to Socialist State Radio:
As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."
This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.
In other words, he always went with the popular Leftist notion that America and everything it stands for is evil, but the reality is we all get by despite our own greed, lust and desire and government only gets in the way.
I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
Conservatism and libertarianism are forms or naturalism, the philosophy that man is best left to his own devices even though they may be selfish. It is folly to fight human nature. Liberalism serves to fight it every step of the way and destroy free will. Mamet understands that now and his writing can only get better with the knowledge.
Ironically, he's been conservative in his work all along. Many interpret things as they want to see them, but much like the work of Larry David, Mamet's has a conservative/libertarian flair that he didn't (and David doesn't) realize. You can say Glengarry Glen Ross is an indictment of capitalism and greed, but is it really? Listen to Ricky Roma go on and tell me he isn't speaking the truth. When Shelley "The Machine" Levine talks about the feeling of making that big sale, he's talking about heroics, the desire of all men to achieve legitimacy in the world rather than being merely a slave.
I digress, but welcome aboard David. Read his whole column here.
While things may be gloomy on the national side of politics, there is a conservative/libertarian revolution going on in Louisiana. While we brace for an Obama Presidency and deal with a Republicans in Congress that have refused to disavow earmarks, Bobby Jindal is taking the most corrupt state in the nation and turning it on a dime. You want real change? Check out the Louisiana Governor. (Hat tip: RedState)
And according to the New York Times he died with his boots on. Buckley is as much responsible for the Conservative movement as Goldwater and Reagan. He was spreading the word in the 1950s, fighting the good fight in the age of the New Deal. Hot Air has his infamous spat with Gore Vidal and, of course National Review has a roundup.
I hate to say it, but after watching this clip I think I'm about ready to start agreeing with the conventional wisdom that Hillary is done. She takes forever to say nothing, while Obama flashes a smile and says "Hey, it's all cool."
You'll hear this a million times...Obama is a very good speaker, he carries himself very well. Unfortunately, the fact that he's wrong on every issue probably won't matter to a majority of voters. The only way Obama can be defeated is with a strong ideological campaign, one based on Friedman-style capitalism and Lockean theory. Or, put another way, conservatism. This is why I don't give McCain much of a chance. He pays conservatism lip-service here and there, but McCain's real ideology is McCainism. He's like the William Shatner character on "Boston Legal." McCain thinks all he has to do to win over voters is say "I'm John McCain!"
On Rush Limbaugh's show this past Friday, he said that the young Republican Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, could be the next Ronald Reagan if he can avoid changing his views over time as so many conservatives before him. He's definitely one to watch out for in the future.
Feeling so hopeless about 2008, I'm already looking to the future.
I've said recently, "DeMint '12" partly in jest, partly in truth. Well, forget the jest. Please play the video below and listen to every word. If you're like me, it will be music to your ears. If a presidential run is overreaching, DeMint needs to at least be put in charge of recruiting for Senate elections. The GOP has to start from scratch and the Congress has some long years of fighting the new president (no matter who it is) ahead of them. DeMint needs to be up front and center.
Anyway, here's the South Carolina Senator on so-called "Stimulus Package."
Mark Levin has a column in National Review in which he pleads with conservatives to rally around Mitt Romney and stop John McCain. He lists off the various problems that conservatives have had with McCain over the past decade.
This led me to think about how McCain and the other candidates have handled the conservative question. One thing I really liked about Rudy was the fact that while he called himself conservative, he didn't try and pretend he was totally. He admitted to having different views on abortion and gun-control and what have you and said, 'Look, we have differences, but we agree on most issues and in this era of fighting terrorism, I'm the best man for the job.' True enough, and Rudy was an easy pick for me as I agreed with him on most issues (except gun-control) and he seemed more honest in his conservatism than Mitt Romney who seemed to have changed many of his views overnight.
Then you have McCain, who is constantly telling us he's a Reagan Conservative and we shouldn't listen to some of the "fools" among the conservative base, he'll tell us what true conservatism is. In short, McCain is basically Republican Party's version of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Remember this guy? He's the one that recently said you can still be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection. All logically-minded people know that that's ludicrous. The belief in the resurrection is Christianity. McCain wants Republicans to believe that you can vote against tax-cuts, grant amnesty to millions of illegals, and make deals with the most liberal members of Congress and still be a conservative.
Look, I'm not a true Reagan Conservative. I believe in legal abortion, drug-legalization, a weak FCC, but I'm smart enough to know that Republicans don't win the presidency when they take every opportunity to kick the conservative base in the teeth. This is 1976 and 1996 all over again.
Pajamas Media has some great stuff this week that you need to check out. First off, they've got a new blogger, Hollywood actor Ron Silver who's found he needs an outlet for his disgust with the MSM and state of the world in general. Silver is one of a handful of entertainment types that grew up on 9/11/01. His first post is here.
Next, we have PJ Media founder Roger L. Simon who is writing a book on the new Hollywood Blacklist of conservatives. It's still in the works, but he has a portion of it online:
So I have not lost sleep worrying whether I have been blacklisted. Still I am sure this new form of Blacklist exists, but not nearly to the formalized extent of the original list of the forties and fifties with its Red Channels and dramatic hearings in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, featuring ‘friendly’ and ‘unfriendly’ witnesses. Times are different and the system functions in a very different manner. Now it operates through an almost invisible thought control caused by a post-Orwellian “liberal” conformity so pervasive a formal Blacklist is not necessary, indeed would work against itself. In some ways, this new, less overt, list is more ominous than its predecessor, because there is nothing concrete to rebel against, no hearings, no committees, no protest groups pro or con, no secret databases that I know of. There doesn’t need to be. There is no there there, in Gertrude’s immortal words – only the grey haze of a mindless received “liberalism”, the world as last month’s New York Times editorials, half-digested and regurgitated, never questioned or even analyzed, going forth forever with little perceived chance of reform, as if it were the permanent religious text of some strange new orthodoxy.
Sounds like a great read, and highly poignant at this place and time when Hollywood works to impose its will on the populous with awards handed out like candy to Michael Moore and Al Gore. (Hat tip: Power Line)
I have a friend who has a great take on the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. The thing with Savage, while you agree with a lot of what he says (and disagree with some of the more extreme views), when you listen to him you end up feeling kind of down. The world is hopeless, we're losing, etc., is the feeling you get. Then you listen to Rush and you feel optimistic, you're proud to be conservative (or libertarian) and you're ready to take on the world.
Then there's Mark Levin, who I call the conservative guilty pleasure. If you're feeling really pissed off about the state of affairs in this country and need to blow off some steam by hearing someone that's as pissed about it as you are...Mark's your man. Case in point, his take on Media Matters.
Well, that was quite a ride. It started with Ted Kennedy and President Bush and then got some help from the McCainiacs...McCain, Graham, Martinez and Kyl. They tried to push an amnesty bill through in the dead of night like the Baltimore Colts in a Mayflower truck. The Conservatives in America responded and responded with a vengeance. If you'd thrown in Harriet Myers, you might have had an all-out civil war.
But then it got weird. Conservatives jammed phone lines, talk radio covered the story and the blogs gave us second-by-second updates. That's not the weird part. What gave us all double-takes was the amount of vitriol aimed at the blogs, talk radio and the grassroots from Republicans. We saw Trent Lott, Trent Lott of all people bashing talk radio, the very talk radio hosts that were his only defenders during the Strom Thurmond fiasco. He says the likes of Rush and Hannity are running America and "we've gonna have to deal with that problem." He also accuses his constituents and other across the country who have been calling his offices of practicing "intimidation." George Voinovich of Ohio, no conservative I grant you, but still a Republican who admits he hasn't read the bill but accuses those who have (i.e. talk radio hosts) of being simplistic.
Does this mean there would be Republican support for the Fairness Doctrine? Maybe. I've always been doubtful that it could ever really come back due to the one ultimate factor in any legislation: money. The National Association of Broadcasters and other TV/Radio lobbying groups will fight the Fairness Doctrine tooth and nail. If it were actually made law, it would destroy AM radio, and money talks in D.C. However, while I still think it won't happen, I'm not as confident as I once was after what has transpired in this Amnesty debate. The Rockefeller Republicans are really turning on the conservative wing and making their displeasure with them known. It may be time for action.
What should we do? I think in 2008, the Conservatives should follow this line of action: Get behind the best Republican candidate for President. Face up to the fact that there was only one Ronald Reagan and you're not going to find his clone in this race. Find the guy that comes the closest to Reagan in conservative principles and most importantly who is very hawkish on the War on Terror, whether it be Rudy, Fred or Mitt and do everything you can to get him elected.
As for the Congress, that's where the conservative base needs to take a different approach. It's time to weed out the dead wood. The half-a-loaf approach in the hopes of getting/keeping a majority in either House Chamber has come back to bite us in the ass. It's given us the likes of Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter and the like. Yes, it would suck if the Dems increased their numbers in '08, but sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.
These are the guys that voted for Amnesty in the Senate: Bennett, Craig, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, Snowe, and Specter. You could probably also throw in a few others who would have voted for it, if they thought it was the winning side, the most notable being Senator Sam Switchback and Senator Mitch McConnell who changed their votes. I'm inclined to cut McConnell a little slack as he is the Majority Leader who is somewhat obligated to serve the President and was very much in a no-win situation here. Anyway, the guys on this list have to go. Find a conservative candidate and get them to run in the primary. If they lose, then don't vote for the incumbent...let him go. If we lose seats, then we regroup and get better candidates in 2010.
Why not send a message with the presidency? Because the president is still the one person that can do the most important job in government: protecting the people. While this Amnesty debate was going on, we might have been inclined to forget that we're also at war with Islamofascists. We need a strong man leading this fight, but what we don't need any longer are guys like Lindsey Graham (who should be target #1) taking us to the dance and then ditching us for the drunk party-girl (for lack of a better metaphor).
James Dobson Says Fred Thompson Not Christian Enough
"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.
Okay, even though I'm not one of them, I've often defended the so-called Christian Right from the frequent attacks they get from the Left and the MSM, but this sort of thing makes much of that criticism valid. When you have a religious leader telling the media, a man isn't Christian enough for a political base to lend it's support, it smacks of when certain parties on the political Left say that Barack Obama "isn't black enough." Dobson, Falwell, Roberts, all these guys who claim to speak for the conservative base are no better than Jesse Jackson claiming to speak for all blacks when they spout this kind of rubbish. They're perfectly within their right to support or not support someone based on their religious convictions, but when you start acting like you are the official kingmaker, you out yourself as a egomaniacal joke.
As the gang at Free Republic point out, it also plays right into the hands of the MSM, who seek to drive a wedge between the various factions of the GOP. (Hat tip: Hot Air)
Pat Hynes over at the Ankle Biters says it would be a mistake for Rudy Giuliani to try and redefine Conservativism and instead he should stick to his beliefs and run on his strong record as an anti-liberal. I very much agree and think this approach (which he seems to be taking) will serve him well in the long run. Rush Limbaugh touched on this too. Bottom line, there's no Reagan Conservative in the race for president in '08. Romney is claiming to be, but his about-face on a lot of issues hearkens back to Joe Lieberman in 2000. It's gonna tough for him to fight off the criticism of being a Johnny-come-lately.
Giuliani isn't a Reagan Conservative either. He's a Libertarian Popinjay. He's strong on defense and foreign policy. He's a law and order guy and knows how to clean up big messes. However, he is "liberal" on social issues, but says he'll appoint strict-constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. Thus far he's played it smart. He's trying to convince the Conservative base of the Republican Party that while they have differences, there's a lot of common ground. The GOP has to say to themselves, there's no Ronald Reagan here, he was a once in a lifetime guy. Now, in the post-Reagan era, we need to pick the best guy that's out there even if he doesn't fit out text-book definition of what a conservative should be.
I agree with Rush that trying to redefine a candidate to fit definition of Conservatism is a fool's game and I certainly don't intend to do that with Giuliani. I'm a pro-war libertarian (i.e., I'm not a Ron Paul nutjob) and Giuliani is a great candidate for what I believe in (though I'd be content with Romney). I have some disagreements with him (immigration, global warming), but they're outweighed by bigger issues and my belief in his integrity.
But just for the record, I would like to point out this quote from Ronald Reagan:
With the passing of conservative icon Jesse Helms, I refer you to a 
Big trouble
