Wednesday, January 30, 2008

What Is Wrong With Republicans?

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

So, McCain has won the Florida primary. The first primary in which only Republican voters may vote for Republicans. And he has won fifty-seven delegates to the Republican National convention.

This is what Republicans want?

Would there be any point in Democrats (or independents) registering as Republicans just to skew the vote in his favor, now?


I think it's pretty clear now that many more Republicans support McCain than true Conservative voters presuppose.


This reminds me of the particular phenomena on the Democratic side where it appears a majority of Democrats swear they would never vote for Hillary, but nevertheless Hillary gets the majority of the Democratic vote.


I think there are "closet voters" on both sides. That's pathetic in my view. If you support a particular candidate say so. Don't say you don't when you do.


What is wrong with Republicans?

I have pointed out before my belief that there are some self described Reagan Republicans who tend to abandon their Conservative principles simply because they believe another, less Conservative candidate is more "electable".
Those who say they support candidates like Guiliani because the more Conservative candidate isn't electable have it backwards.

You aren't dumping your core Conservative principles because the Conservative candidates are unelectable. Conservative candidates become unelectable because Conservatives dump their principles.


John McCain is a likable, charismatic man. He sounds very sincere when he talks. He appears to the public to be the kind of guy that everyone likes. He has the kind of public persona that some bloggers have described as "presidential".


But John McCain is not Conservative. He is wrong for this country. Granted, he is better than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards, but not much better.


Do you see, now, why standing on principle, no matter how impossible it might seem, is the better course? In sacrificing your principles, you have inadvertently thrown the better, more Conservative candidates under the proverbial bus. And now we will have to choose between two evils in the upcoming general election.


Now, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being forced to vote for a candidate that is far from a Reagan Conservative.


Well, you wanted the most electable candidate to run against Hillary, and you got him.


Duncan Hunter is looking pretty darn good, now, isn't he?


It appears that McCain is the most electable candidate. If he is our party's eventual nominee, and it certainly appears that is where we are headed, I will vote for him. Not because I believe he is the best man for the job, because he isn't. But because he will be the only choice for Republicans. I will not vote for a third party candidate. I do not recommend voting for a third party because that will insure a Democrat win. I will not vote for a Democrat. I will do whatever it legally takes to prevent a Democrat win.


Congratulations, Republicans. You got what you asked for.

I hope you are happy.

15 comments:

Trader Rick said...

Don’t make the mistake of assuming the terms “conservative” and “republican” are synonyms They are most decidedly not, this year. The Republicrats are getting what they deserve, you’re right—They most decidedly don’t want a conservative or anybody that resembles Bush. The republicrats are Democrats-Lite. No place for right wingers to go this year. The Supreme Court will destroy our civilization in the coming generation, unless real conservatives can gain power somehow…

Al-Ozarka said...

"Well, you wanted the most electable candidate to run against Hillary, and you got him."

No we didn't get the most electable candidate...we missed that by falling for the lies and distortions about the one TRUE conservative in the race from the start, Huckabee.

Please...don't blame me...I've been firm in my convictions and principles all along and have been backing the right candidate during that time.

Now, because of the misguided efforts of the punditry, I am reduced to praying for a brokered convention.

Help us obi-Wan...you're our only hope!

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I agree with you assessment that because conservatives did not sick to their guns with Hunter, like you and Fred, like both of us, we are stuck with McCain.

I also think that the hillary factor has a lot to do with it.

Other than a couple of months back in the summer when Giuliani polled better than Hillary, McCain is the only GOP who has polled higher than her in every poll.

I think when voters went to the booth the fear of Hillary in the White House again, this time in charge, cause the McCain button to be pushed because of polling that shows he can beat her.

I hope it is not a fundamental shift in the GOP if so we are right back where we were in the Nixon days accept McCain is not paranoid like Nixon was.

Dan Trabue said...

Do you think this means that "conservative" (ie, conservative by your standards) Republicans are a minority group in that party and, by extension, this country?

Mark said...

Dan, it is certainly starting to look like it. Now I have blogger buddies who call themselves "Reagan Conservatives" angry at me for speaking the truth as I see it.

One in particular, backed Guiliani from the beginning, and then when Rudy's star faded, briefly switched his support to Thompson, until Thompson also dropped out.

Never once, even after he personally met Hunter, did he support Hunter. And why? In his own words, "Hunter is not electable".

Well, Duh! No one is electable who doesn't get supoort from his own base. If one wants a candidate to be electable, one must support that candidate.

Dan Trabue said...

Well, I reckon you're in the same boat I'm in. Although I've never thought I was anything but part of a minority group (the fiscally-responsible, small-but-smart gov't, sustainable, opposed to corporate welfare, small military libertarian-leaning Green-meanie group.)

Pamela Reece said...

Mark, As a true Conservative, this is indeed a disappointing election. I no more want to see McCain elected than Obama. You are right about the fact that Conservatives should have had the you-know-what's to start fighting fast and furiously for the a Conservative candidate a long time ago. Instead, too many sat back and just waited for the lost democrat votes to make the choice for us. The GOP, the RNC and Conservatives should be ashamed for letting this happen, myself included.

Nick said...

Your anger over the lack of support by conservatives for Hunter mirror mine.

But let's think about this. Much of the GOP money and donations to help the candidates from from Big Business interests.

Hunter is SERIOUS about stopping illegal immigration, his record showed it. Also, he is for FAIR trade, not so-called "free" trade. He and Huckabee have a big enough pair to admit that corporation interests should not run America and be the major influence in our immigration enforcement and foreign trade policies, but rather, the most important issue should be Americans and protecting our sovereignty.

The big business interests don't care about American sovereignty any more than the liberals who are trying to sell us out to the U.N. The only difference is the big business lobbyists just want to sell out the country to cheap labor.

Mitt Romney promises to be tough on illegal immigration. Do you honestly think he supports throwing employers in jail who knowingly hire illegal aliens?? Of course not, because much of the political donations he receives would be cut off.

Mark said...

I don't know if I want to go so far as blaming the results of the latest Primary on "Big Business". And I'm also not completely convinced that free trade isn't a good thing. I see problems inherent with NAFTA and CAFTA, but refusing free trade with other countries might be almost as bad as continuing, but that is a topic for another, slightly more informed post.

Nick said...

In reference to the henderences business interests have caused, just look at the Kennedy-McCain immigration "reform" bill. It could have very well been called the LaRaza-Big Business bill as both pro-illegal immigrant groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the bill.

It was We the People that stood up and said NO, mostly hard-working, middle class Americans.

Free trade agreements would maybe be better if we didn't have countries like China charging high tariffs while we charged almost nothing to their exports into our markets. But you're right, I completely different discussion. I'm generally more in favor of fair trade as opposed to free trade.

But back to your point about this primary, you are right. Conservatives should have lined up and supported the real conservatives in the race.

Gayle said...

Hunter was my original choice, then Thompson, and now we're stuck with either McCain or Romney. Unlike many Republicans Mark, I think the Democrats would eat McCain alive. I don't find him the most electable, and wouldn't vote for him if I did! If he beats Romney I may have to hold my nose in order to vote, but vote Republican I will. I may not be happy about our choices now, but at least I'm not claiming that if McCain wins I'll vote for Hillary, which is exactly what Ann Coulter said on Hannity and Colmes last night.

I watched the Democratic debate on CNN last night, which leads me to believe that either Obama or Hillary can beat McCain. They may be Democrats, and Hillary especially has more than her fair share of dirty laundry, but both of them are smart politicians. They knew enough not to engage in bating or bashing each other in last night's debate.

We Republicans are between a rock and a hard place. What a revolting development this is!

Marshall Art said...

I heard about Coulter. I doubt she'll vote for Hillary or risk her winning by not voting at all. She's just being Ann.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Never once, even after he personally met Hunter, did he support Hunter. And why? In his own words, "Hunter is not electable".

Well, Duh! No one is electable who doesn't get supoort from his own base. If one wants a candidate to be electable, one must support that candidate.


Mark, I still don't think you quite get it.

No one is saying electability is all-important; but neither is voting "on principle", and putting forth a candidate who has little chances of winning in a general election. You have to weigh both factors into the equation. No one is saying to put forth a candidate so watered down of conservatism, that he is indistinguishable from the opposition party. John McCain can't "out-liberal" Hillary or Obama.

Duncan Hunter would have lost. Frankly, any of these GOP candidates would have had a tough time in this election cycle of winning. If the GOP loses in '08, it won't be because you were right, and we who didn't agree with you were wrong.

And now of course, the spoiled angry-as-hell conservatives who didn't get their way with their ultra-conservative may sit out the election or go third party. It is so misguided and beyond belief to me that there are voters out there like that. They would be the ones responsible for throwing away an election and selling the country down the toilet, to the liberals.

Half the country is not conservative, Mark. They don't think like you do. They don't share your values. You need an, excuse the comparison, an Obama rock-star of the right who has the charisma to charm and attract independents and cross-over voters, as well as fire up the base. No one in this election cycle on the GOP ticket had that "it" factor. Not Fred Thompson. Not Duncan Hunter. That's just the way it is. But what we have to do is make the best of the hand we are dealt with and quit trashing each other and going into hysterics over who is and isn't a true conservative, blah, blah, blah. Today, Ronald Reagan wouldn't be Reagan enough for the Coulters, Malkins, Ingrahams, and hard-liners.

Dan Trabue said...

Amen, Wordsmith.

Marshall Art said...

Smithy,

Where I agree with you is in the lack of celebrity personality in the GOP candidates, though Romney has the look.

Where I disagree is whether or not such things should matter as much as it does. If we start from square one, everyone looking to support the "most conservative" candidate should only be supporting the most conservative candidate because he/she IS the most conservative. The notion of electability should never enter into it at this point. This candidate would have at LEAST the base.

I don't believe that the country is evenly split between left and right. I say this because of so many on the left who have no freakin' idea just what it means to be a conservative & what conservative principles and ideals really are. If you have any lib friends, ask them simple questions that would help them understand the difference between left and right. I have a few friends who are libs, and one who isn't political at all but thinks all Republicans are a-holes because he falls for the touchy-feely crap of the left. I asked this one, "Should all your co-workers be paid the same automatically, or should merit ever matter in who earns what?" Of course he thought that if he busted it harder, did a better job regularly, was punctual, etc, that he should get better raises and such. He doesn't believe goldbrickers should be paid as much as him. On this issue, he's more conservative than he thinks he is. In fact, he doesn't work regularly, being pretty much self-employed, but I've never known him to seek unemployment bennies. Questions like this make them think about why they are a lib. It actually is kinda how I came to understand that I'm a conservative. Articulating the principles of conservatism would attract many more from the left, as well as those fence sitters, away from the dark side. The result would be numbers that would make any GOP candidate electable.

Let's get busy.