January 27-31, 2008
Jan 27 03:23 Three Cheers For Fred Thompson Jan 27 18:57 Huckabee's Arkansas Record of Hostility Jan 27 20:20 Captain Ed Endorses Mitt Jan 27 20:48 Mark Your Calendars Jan 28 02:49 Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition? Jan 31 05:08 Three Cheers For John McCain
Three Cheers For Fred Thompson
The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson has a must read column on why Fred Thompson's campaign failed...and why it shouldn't have failed. Here's a delicious sample of Ferguson's thinking:
The man or woman who seeks out such a life and enjoys its discomforts is not normal. Not crazy necessarily, but not normal, and probably, when the chips are down, not to be trusted, especially when the purpose of it all is to acquire power over other people (also called, in the delicate language of contemporary politics, "public service" or "getting things done on behalf of the American people"). The case is made, in defense of the contemporary campaign, that this is an efficient if unlovely way to choose leaders: It winnows out those who lack the stamina and discipline necessary to lead a rich, large, powerful, and complicated country. By this argument, Thompson failed because he deserved to.Frankly, I was upset that Fred didn't garner more votes than he did. I'm more upset with the way the media gave his campaign less attention than they'd give a leper. Most of all, I'm upset with right-of-center commentators who talked endlessly about the latest poll, the candidates' cash on hand and other horserace-related topics while ignoring the candidates' qualifications.
But the opposite case is easier to make, that the modern campaign excludes anyone who lacks the narcissism, cold-bloodedness, and unreflective nature that the process requires and rewards. In his memoir, Greenspan remarks that of the seven presidents he has known well, the only one who was "close to normal" was Jerry Ford. And, as Greenspan points out, Ford was never elected.
Fred Thompson probably feels terrible at the moment, but he should be honored to be in Ford's company.
To this day, I'm still convinced that Fred Thompson was the most over-qualified presidential candidate since Reagan. To this day, I'm upset that conservatives, who say that the GOP has to be the party of ideas, ignored Fred like he was the Invisible Man.
After the 2006 midterm elections, analysts said that it was an "ideology-free campaign." I said that the GOP had to return to being the party of ideas. That's what I've devoted the last 14 months to. On issue after issue, I'll bet that Fred would've drawn a sharp, compelling contrast between the Democrats' position and the GOP's position.
Conversely, the least-qualified candidate was Mike Huckabee. Simply put, his smartalecky answers were seen as amusing, which garnered him some attention. Frankly, I've never even thought of the Huckster as a second tier candidate, much less a first tier candidate.
One theory I have about why Fred didn't do as well as some thought he would is because the GOP focused on being a big tent party that it forgot to be a principled big tent party. The GOP got so enamored with the majority that they tossed aside the principles that brought the GOP to the doorstep of being the majority party for a generation.
Another theory I have about the GOP's rejection of Fred Thompson is their not understanding what the pillars of conservatism is built with. At its core, the three essential pillars of Reaganite conservatism were liberty, liberty and liberty. Fred understood that we needed a strong national defense strategy to keep us a free nation. Fred understood that we needed to keep taxes and spending low to give individuals economic liberty. Fred understands that Americans cherish personal freedom, which is why small l libertarianism is part of the Reaganite-Goldwater model.
Views like these might have earned another candidate a reputation for "straight talk", maybe even the title of "maverick." But Thompson was more subversive than that; he was an existential maverick, and his campaign was an implicit rebuke to the system in its entirety. He was a man out of his time. With its reduced metabolism and procedural modesty, his campaign still might have served as an illustration of what politics once was like and , if we have the audacity to hope, might be again. After all, by the standards of a century ago, Thompson was a whirligig.The best thing that could happen to the GOP is for the next generation of GOP leaders to be Fred Thompson intellectual heavyweights. That'll take lots of work because intellects like Fred don't come along everyday. Let's illustrate that by playing a little word association with the candidates.
The first word I think of when I hear McCain's name is panderer. (The second is stubborn.) The first word I think of when I hear Huckabee's name is socialist. The first word I think of when I hear Ron Paul's name is either Neptune or Pluto. The first word I think of when I hear Mitt's name is flip-flopper. The first word I think of when I hear Fred's name is gravitas. The first word I think of when I hear Giuliani's name is 9/11.
That should've been the big indicator as to who was best equipped to be the GOP nominee. Unfortunately, the first states allowed open voting, meaning that liberals could pick candidates as unqualified as Mike Huckabee and as liberal as John McCain.
It's time we started picking serious candidates that would've tied the Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the world in knots. That's what Fred gave us. Which of the last debates, from the 'Schoolmarm' debate in Iowa to the ABC debate in New Hampshire to the FNC debate in South Carolina wasn't Fred the smartest man on the stage? That string of impressive debates was nothing less than an intellectual drubbing by Fred.
While the other candidates each settled into their niches, Fred owned the stage. National security credentials? Check. Fiscal conservative? Yep. Federalist? Definitely. Immigration hardliner? Without a doubt.
The most-repeated 'criticism' of Fred was his......style. We were insulted by people who said that Fred didn't have a fire in his belly. PHHHFTTT!!!! Give me a brilliant man who's thought through the important issues of the day over a politician with fire in their belly anytime. That isn't a difficult decision.
Finally, my hope is that we'll take Fred Thompson, and like-minded politicians, seriously the next time around.
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:26 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Thul at 27-Jan-08 08:55 AM
Now that Fred's out, who do think is next best? McCain's out for me, as well as Huckabee. Guiliani's probably done unless he storms Florida, so that leaves me with Romney.
All in all, I'd say my excitement in this race just dropped by half with Fred's exit.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-08 12:45 PM
I'll probably support Mitt but they're all vastly inferior candidates than Fred. There's a reason why he mopped the floor with their backsides in the last 4 debates. It's because he was the vastly superior candidate.
Comment 3 by spacemonkey at 27-Jan-08 02:20 PM
I am through holding my nose.
I'm still voting Fred Thompson, Primary and General.
Comment 4 by Tracy at 27-Jan-08 04:52 PM
You missed a few crucial details. Having Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for the entire process just doesn't work anymore. Huckabee is proof that a small agricultural state and a smaller state so stupid that their quarter icon no longer exists are not working anymore. We need a larger state early with closed primaries.
Our selection process virtually quarantees that we get crap each time.
Comment 5 by Leo Pusateri at 30-Jan-08 07:48 AM
IMO, the whole primary system is a sham, and needs to be re-worked on a national basis.
With the ability of both parties to gerry-rig the others' primary elections, the outcomes have absolutely nothing to do with the will of the rank and file of the respective parties.
I heard yesterday that McCain was counting on the support of democrats and independents. He knows he can't win via the rank and file of the Republican party.
The rank and file, via the primary process, is effectively disenfranchised.
Comment 6 by Sam at 30-Jan-08 09:19 AM
Leo,
While the primary system is not perfect, neither is your suggestion of a state nominating convention.
In MN, many remember the strong arm twisting of the local state legislators over their constituents on the floor, to ensure that their man and colleague Tim Pawlenty would win.
This was over the objections and pleas of many who felt that Tim would not hold true to conservative values and instead tend toward finding a moderate compromise.
The legislators won and MN conservatives lost.
Fred's problem was not the primary system, if you notice he never polled above the votes he got in any state with Republicans.
I think maybe the problem lies more in the media for nomination.
The focus on polls and the sham debates. I would rather see a real discussion of three issues, then these hour long poll shows "Who wants to win the war" - show of hands, "Who want to lower taxes" - show of hands.
Huckabee's Arkansas Record of Hostility
Now that he's almost mathematically eliminated, stories are coming out about the Arkansas Disaster that Mike Huckabee presided over. This is one of those stories. To say that Huckabee didn't rebuild the GOP is understatement. To say that he didn't make friends is also understatement.
Jake Files was a newly elected representative when all two dozen Arkansas House Republicans met for their first caucus in 1999. They had doubled their numbers in elections two months earlier, and were ready to join Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee in pushing for conservative government.Last night, I said that the first word I thought of when Mike Huckabee's name came up was socialist. I'll still stand by that but I'll add that the second word I'll think of now is dictator. Tyrant also fits. Like his responses to Mitt asking him if he raised taxes, Huckabee's response to these charges is similarly evasive:
That was when Brenda Turner, the governor's chief of staff, entered.
"Just walked in, shut the door and said, 'There's two kinds of people in the world: those who are for Mike Huckabee and those who are against Mike Huckabee. I'll do everything I can to help the first group. I'll do everything I can to hurt the second,'" said Mr. Files, who left the legislature after two terms.
Jim Harris, a campaign spokesman who also worked for Mr. Huckabee in the governor's office, said Mr. Huckabee was deeply involved in helping state Republicans.Huckabee's GOP opponents tell a strikingly different tale:
"He raised a lot of money regularly; he campaigned tirelessly for GOP candidates up and down the ballot; he gave from [his political action committee] to GOP candidates," Mr. Harris said, adding that Mr. Huckabee appointed years' worth of Republicans to boards and commissions.
"This created a strong network of individuals who will run for office in the future under the Republican banner," he said.
Mr. Huckabee gave contributions as well during those years to at least three Democrats. Given that $5,000 of CLAPAC's money came in a 2003 donation from the state Republican Party, that means some Republican money was used indirectly to aid the party's own opponents.I've called Huckabee alot of things (socialist, tyrant are my favorites) but I wouldn't call him a team player if my life depended on it. the more we learn about Mr. Huckabee, the less appealling he becomes. Frankly, I can't find anything appealling about him once you get past the part that he's pro-life.
"Go out and ask those ladies at bake sales or out raising money if they thought that money would end up in the hands of Democratic candidates," Mr. Hendren said. "That's what drove us up a wall."
This is the right time to remind people that the GOP going forward must strive to be a principled majority party. That doesn't mean ideologically pure because purist parties are permanent minority parties. What it means is that we first define the most important principles that undergird our policies. Secondly, it means we direct our contributions to people who share those principles with us. That means that the RNC and the NRSC don't get contributions until they stop supporting RINOs.
Thirdly, it's the activists' responsibility to tell their legislator what's most important to them. Without that input, it's guaranteed that they'll lose sight of reality. If they stray too far on the most important issues, then we need to remind them that they work for We The People , not vice versa. From time to time, that means running a candidate in a primary against a straying incumbent.
Based on this information and these principles, it's safe to say that Mike Huckabee didn't care about staying faithful to conservative principles nor to the party that he belonged to. Furthermore, had the Arkansas GOP demanded fidelity to these principles, they never would've had to deal with him.
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:58 PM
No comments.
Captain Ed Endorses Mitt
Earlier today, Captain Ed announced that he'd caucus for Mitt Romney when Minnesota holds its caucuses on Super Duper Tuesday. Of the remaining candidates, I find myself agreeing most with Mitt. Something that Captain Ed said, though, raised some red flags for me. This is the part that caught my attention:
This decision did not come easily. Some have complained about the choices available to the Republicans, but I have seen the field as a collection of highly accomplished, experienced candidates, almost all of whom I could support, enthusiastically, in a general election. That made the decision as hard as it was, and it forced me to analyze what I want to see in a nominee.Frankly, this isn't a great bunch of candidates. John McCain is certainly strong on the Iraq war but he's also the guy who would pick justices who would preserve his only legislative 'achievement', campaign finance reform. He's also the man who thinks that manmade global warming is so important that he's willing to co-sponsor a huge tax increase to reverse manmade global warming.
That's before we start talking about his role in the McCain-Kennedy Grand Bargain amnesty bill. Sen. McCain says that he "got the message" on immigration reform, that he'll shut down the borders first before giving all the illegal immigrants amnesty. As I wrote here, we got the message , too, when he hired Juan Hernandez as his "Hispanic Outreach Director."
That isn't the resume of a great candidate. The only way you get there is if you're good at rationalizing and if you use the loosest of subjective criteria.
Next there's Mike Huckabee. His resume reads like a liberal's. He's cut some taxes, raised others. He tried giving illegal immigrants taxpayer-subsidized tuition breaks. That's before we start talking about his foreign policy credentials, which are meager at best.
He's run the Arkansas GOP into the ground , too, because conservatives frequently opposed his initiatives. According to the Washington Times article, anyone that didn't follow him in lockstep was undercut by Huckabee.
Here's another statement that I disagree with:
The Democrats have no one who can match that experience. Putting McCain or especially Fred Thompson against the Democratic nominee, whether that is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, effectively cedes the inexperience argument. It argues that Republicans consider resumes to be irrelevant, and that will have us fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.Having Fred Thompson as the nominee "effectively cedes the inexperience argument"? Who was the man that gave the most intelligent answers, whether the subject was foreign policy, immigration, specific entitlement reforms, the overall economy? Who mopped the floor with the other candidates in the ABC debate in New Hampshire? Who mopped the floor with them again in FNC's South Carolina debate?
Putting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on stage in a debate against Fred would be a delight. He'd surgically destroy their arguments, just like he did with Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney during the ABC-sponsored debate from New Hampshire. Fred's the only GOP with whom the word gravitas fits. Simply put, Fred was the smartest man on stage at the GOP presidential debates.
I'd further argue that Fred's experience on the Intelligence Committee and Foreign Relations Committee gives him a depth of knowledge on the most important issue of the race that neither Hillary or Obama has.
To be fair, though, there's much in Captain Ed's post that I agree with. Here's the part that I agree most with:
Both Rudy and Romney have led entire organizations in both the public and private sectors, with Romney getting the best in this area. They have had the buck stop at their desk. Both Rudy and Romney have transformed failing entities (New York City and the Salt Lake City Olympics).It's impossible to argue with Captain Ed's arguments here. Both gentlemen have turned disasters into undeniable success stories. Here's another statement with which I agree:
Mitt, however, has shown that he will fight in every state, while Rudy played a bit of rope-a-dope, and has apparently lost the gamble. Until the debate, I thought Rudy might have had the right idea, but Rudy still hasn't come out of the gate in any effective manner.Mitt has the resources needed to compete in each state, something that'll be needed in the coming months.
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 8:20 PM
No comments.
Mark Your Calendars
I just visited enemy territory, aka Liberal in the Land of Conservatives. Eric's come up with a great idea for Monday night, February 4th. That night, he'll host a live webchat on the GOP & Democratic presidential races as well as a discussion of the Minnesota Senate race & "politics in general." Furthermore, he's invited Minnesotans to participate in a presidential poll for both parties.
So, to get back into the swing of things on a national level I have created two polls in the left sidebar to gauge the level of support in both the Republican and Democratic contests here in Minnesota. I will leave the polling open until Monday, February 4th. The only thing I ask is that ONLY people living in Minnesota participate and that you vote only ONCE.All that's asked of people participating in the chat is that they discuss things with civility, something that I heartily agree with. follow the link above to Eric's post for more details. This promises to be a fun event.
To top it off, I am inviting ALL visitors to participate in the first ever Liberal in the Land of Conservative political chat on February 4th.
Just as an aside, I met Eric at the recent health care forum. I now consider him a friend & a gentleman. (Just because he's on the wrong side of the issues doesn't mean that he isn't a gentleman. LOL)The most refreshing thing about him is that he's genuinely interested in talking about the issues instead of talking smack.
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2008 8:49 PM
No comments.
Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition?
I just visited the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition's website. What I found astonished me. There was a link to their annual meeting, which was held in Duluth on Oct. 17, 2007. the first few paragraphs were tidbits of information, including a skit, the election of new officers, etc. After that, they devoted a section to resolutions for the upcoming federal legislative session. The first resolution called for fixing Medicare Part D, the second resolution was about authorizing "the Re-Importation of Prescription Drugs."
Pretty standard liberal fare in terms of health care thus far. The next section caught my attention. Here's why:
Impose a Tax on Energy Companies' Windfall ProfitsThinking people of all political stripes are probably asking what a health care coalition passed a resolution calling for an energy windfall profits tax. When someone figures that out, let me know because that one zoomed right over my head. I suspect that health care & a windfall profits tax on oil have as much to do with each other as spring training has to do with Instant Runoff Voting.
WHEREAS, energy companies are overcharging American consumers and generating record profits, while consumers are struggling to pay for energy, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition (GMHCC) urges Congress to enact a windfall profits tax on energy companies, with the money to be used for low income energy assistance, for conservation and for alternate fuels.
Here's their next federal resolution:
Strengthen Social SecurityAfter those resolutions, I proceeded to read their Minnesota resolutions. Here's the text of their first resolution:
WHEREAS, the Social Security system is in need of correction for its future solvency but would be endangered by carving private accounts out of the Social Security Trust Fund, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition (GMHCC) urges Congress not to divert Social Security funds into private accounts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GMHCC urges Congress to take the cap off of wages subject to the payroll tax, so that all gross wages are taxed.
Create Universal Health CareLet's give GMHCC credit for their straightforwardness. Let's also chastise them for proposing such a disastrous policy. The notion that health care is a constitutional right isn't absurd because it's beyond that. It's also worth noting the inflammatory rhetoric that they used in the resolution:
WHEREAS, the health care crisis for all Minnesotans continues to escalate with no solutions for affordability being offered by the private sector; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition (GMHCC) urges the Minnesota Legislature to enact a public, affordable, universal health care system for all Minnesotans , by passing Senate File 102 ; House File 479, which would create a process to produce legislation for this purpose and require it to be implemented by 2010, and also proposes a constitutional amendment for the right to affordable health care ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition (GMHCC) supports, as stepping stones, state legislation to create a public health insurance system, such as one to unify state-subsidized programs, public employees', retirees', legislators', and small business health insurance and that of universal coverage for children.
WHEREAS, the health care crisis for all Minnesotans continues to escalate with no solutions for affordability being offered by the private sectorIt isn't a crisis when 91 percent of Minnesotans have health insurance. It isn't a crisis when 59 percent of Minnesota's uninsured are eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. It's impossible to examine objective facts & conclude that Minnesota has a health care crisis. One of those objective facts is that Minnesota has ranked first or second in overall health in the nation each of the last 15 years.
It's also fairly ridiculous to say that GMHCC is only interested in health care, especially when this is their vision statement :
Vision StatementSimply put, GMHCC is just another liberal activist organization. Their big push this year is
The Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition represents the interests of all citizens in Greater Minnesota on health care and other issues of economic and social justice.
- We seek changes that promote the health and well-being of all citizens and correct the great economic inequalities in our society.
- We seek to help build a society that lives out the values of compassion,integrity, meaningful relationships, and mutual accountability.
Ask yourself this question: When was the last time you read about a capitalist organization seeking to "correct the great economic inequalities in our society"?
I've written about single-payer health care alot the last couple weeks. That's because I know what's at stake. Let me remind you of a few things I've posted. Here's something that John Marty said about health care:
"We need to view health care as a community need, like we think of the police department or the fire department."Not coincidentally, John Marty spoke at another health care forum last September. The special guests at that day's events were John Conyers & Keith Ellison. Here's what Joel Segal, Conyers' legislative aide, said at that event :
"Nothing is going to change except there will be no more stock market, investor-owned doctors' offices or hospitals," said Segal.That's what socialists sound like when they talk about health care. They view health care professionals, whether we're talking about hospitals, doctors or pharmaceutical companies, as greedy money-grubbers. Where a capitalist sees profit as motivation for taking risks, socialists see profits as rich people taking advantage of poor & oppressed people.
Yes, that's a bit of an oversimplification but that doesn't mean it's inaccorate. The question to ask is this: Which lens would you rather view life through? If you'd rather view life through a capitalist's eyes, then you'd better be willing to work hard to defeat this constitutional amendment staring us in the face:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to state that every resident of Minnesota has the right to health care and that it is the responsibility of the governor and the legislature to implement all necessary legislation to ensure affordable health care?If that constitutional amendment isn't defeated, then we'll have a socialized health care system in the near future.
Yes .......
No ......."
In summation, GMHCC definitely advocates for
That's a message worth rejecting.
Posted Monday, January 28, 2008 2:55 AM
No comments.
Three Cheers For John McCain
After reading this transcript from today's Glenn Beck show, I now understand the wisdom of John McCain being the GOP presidential nominee.
STU: Why aren't you happy? Big primary last night. We had to talk about Republican issues.How can you argue against Stu's logic? After all, isn't it time that we just set aside our core beliefs for the good of the party? Just because our core beliefs have stood the test of time doesn't mean that they'll forever stand the test of time, right? Isn't it better to agree with the latest opinion poll than agree with time-tested principles like federalism, limited government and sovereignty?
GLENN: John McCain won.
STU: Yeah, John McCain, Republican, frontrunner.
GLENN: We're the Republican radio station.
STU: I know, I know. And John McCain's Republican. Look at the odds right after his bid.
GLENN: What did you say?
STU: The Rs right after his name.
GLENN: But he is not really a Republican.
STU: No, I said John McCain, R.
GLENN: Have you seen his amnesty proposal?
STU: I know, it's fantastic. I now love it.
GLENN: What do you mean you now love it?
STU: I now love it. It's going to be great. The --
GLENN: We were on the air for months hating it.
STU: No, it was --
GLENN: This guy was in charge of the amnesty program. He partnered with Ted Kennedy.
STU: Yeah, I know. We love partnering with Ted Kennedy. I think this is the future of the party.
GLENN: You know who Juan Hernandez is, right?
STU: Oh, Juan, he is a great whopper. He is going to be fantastic.
GLENN: You hated Juan Hernandez. Juan Hernandez is the guy who says there should be one great state, Mex-Ameri-Canada. He says that Canada and Mexico and the United States should just all get together, once a Mexican, always a Mexican.
STU: This is ridiculous. You are talking about yesterday when I said that?
GLENN: What?
STU: You're talking about yesterday when I said I didn't like Juan Hernandez.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: This is today. John McCain won last night. Now I love him. I need you to get a little bit more pep in your voice when you are doing these breaks. These songs are way down key. They are low-key. People are excited today to vote for John McCain for President.
GLENN: Hang on. Hey, that's the eagles and desperado on WGOP radio where, whoo, cowboy, John McCain won last night. And I mean, it's -- hey. Maybe Joe Lieberman could run with him because they're good buddies, too. Joe Lieberman and John McCain and wouldn't that be, you know, the whole global warming thing. They will be on top of that one with John McCain in the White House. And congratulations from all of us here at WGOP where the party goes on.
Seriously, though, Glenn's and Stu's mock conversation is being conducted all across the United States. People haven't seen proof that Republicans still have a set of core values. People haven't seen proof that Republicans stand for something other than being in the majority. The truth is that Reaganite conservatives stand for something quite different than Democrats.
Earlier tonight, I had the good furtune of talking with King . While the conversation started about the upcoming precince caucuses, it soon moved into talk about McCain, Romney and the future of the GOP. One quick point of agreement was that anyone who says that they're a Reagan Republican should be disqualified from being the GOP presidential nominee. The only top tier candidate who didn't claim to be created in Reagan's image was Fred Thompson, the candidate who was most like Reagan philosophically.
According to CNN's transcript of tonight's debate , here's the final exchange between Anderson Cooper and John McCain:
COOPER: Senator McCain, would Ronald Reagan endorse you?It's interesting that McCain started with a cheapshot at Mitt Romney, violating Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. I can't imagine him gaining points with that.
MCCAIN: Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.
Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles, and there were many times, like when he had to deploy the [Pershing] cruise missile to Europe and there were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against it, he stood with it. Ronald Reagan had a deal in Reykjavik that everybody wanted him to take, but he stuck with his principles.
I think he knows that I stick with my principles. I put my political career on the line because I knew what would happen if we failed in Iraq. I hope that the experience I had serving as a foot soldier in his revolution would make him proud for me to continue that legacy of sticking to principle and doing what you believe in, no matter what.
McCain then gave a telling answer, saying only that Reagan "came with an unshakable set of principles." It's interesting because Reagan's "unshakable set of principles" were rooted in the Constitution, including the First Amendment. Not only is it true that McCain won't back away from BCRA, he wants to 'strengthen it.' I'd bet the ranch that Ronald Reagan would've swatted BCRA aside the second it hit his desk.
More importantly, Reagan was steadfast because Reagan's principles were honed over several decades, rigorous debates and constant observation of the economy and the Soviet Union. People viewed Reagan as an "amiable dunce." McCain doesn't want to talk about what principles Ronald Reagan held because they frequently would be at odds with the principles that McCain holds dear.
I suppose it's good news that Sen. McCain is a politician that sticks with his principles. The'res no doubt that the bad news is that Sen. McCain stubbornly defends principles that any federalist, including Reagan, would've run from.
The other thing I took from Wednesday's debate is that McCain was his usual smug self. Bill Bennett correctly stated afterwards that McCain is still evasive:
BENNETT: But Anderson, you pressed McCain on this question of immigration, because he answered three times, my bill will not come up; that legislation would not come up. But you asked, or someone asked, would you support it again. And he finally did say, I think he said no. On the five or six big issues that people try to tag John McCain as being liberal, immigration, campaign finance down the line, he doesn't respond to those. What he says is well, I've got a record. I've got a life.The truth is that McCain is too often evasive on the stickiest of subjects. He clearly doesn't like talking about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. If you look at the video, he gets visibly defensive anytime he's asked about it.
MARTIN: Actually, he did respond, Bill. What he consistently said was, look, the American people let their voice be heard. That's not going to come up. So that sounds like someone who said look, I have ideas.
BENNETT: Let me finish my point. On those five or six issues, he tends to throw up this cloud of, I am who I am. I have served my country. The point I want to make here is that people want real answers to those question. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. And he has to watch a kind of moral superiority. Look, I'm John McCain. Everybody admires the hero thing, but it doesn't constitute an answer to some hard questions.
Posted Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:09 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 31-Jan-08 01:27 PM
one thing I noticed in the debate.
Mccain gave Rommey a lecture that the answer to the concept of a timetable was a "No" and should've have been considered.
Give that standard:
* Why did he propose Mccain-feingold since that was suppose to be an automatic no
* Why did he even propose the amnesty.
Do I need to go on? A man with principals like Reagan would've never proposed these let alone needed to be corrected.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by TitanTrader at 02-Feb-08 06:35 PM
I see after months of bashing Romney, you finally have come around, I heard you on "the final word". Too bad it's to late to stop the Not-so-straight-talk express. I also heard you not committing to vote for McLame after he wins this nomination. Which is fine, I will never vote for the man. My real problem is all these radio host's and bloggers who, within a few days will be claiming we now all need to jump aboard. I am going to find that very insulting.
Gary, you seem like a great guy and I am not just picking on you. But, thanks to everyone ripping on Romney we are stuck with McAmnesty and the whole ticket will suffer, all because these so called smartest people in the party couldn't see what I saw 12 months ago. And that was that Romney was our best choice to rallying the base. Now were screwed.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-08 08:44 PM
Titan, Don't be such a fatalist. It ain't over by a long shot.
BTW, had people paid attention to the policies that Fred Thompson had, they would've rallied around him, not Mitt.
