Post Super Duper Tuesday Reflections - UPDATE

Well, Fred wasn’t in the game. It seems to me, that both he and Rudy damaged their campaigns by not entering and participating early enough. We don’t get to vote in a primary here in Indiana for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling the Republican nominee will be locked in by then.

Glenn has a few interesting links…

After seven years of watching and fighting against Americans who wish to see the country suffer so that they can get at George Bush, the last thing I wanted or expected to see was conservatives saying they would rather see the country suffer than support John McCain over Clinton or Obama, so that they can “get the blame.”

A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either.

Good point to remember come November, the choice isn’t between two evils, it’s between the less then perfect Republican, and the far less perfect Democrat. Who matches more closely to your view on issues? That’s who you should think about voting for.

Glenn also says “To me this seems like much ado about nothing. McCain and Romney are both moderate Republicans; the differences between them have been exaggerated by those who don’t like McCain, and don’t have much bearing on what’s good for the country.”

He also linked to the Corner, where Stephen Spruiell remarks about McCain’s speech last night. I wasn’t watching any coverage last night. We watched NCIS and House, then watched the local weather radar when the Super Duper thunderstorms that moved through our area. So, I looked up McCain’s speech on his website, and it reads pretty good. It will also be interesting to see his reception at CPAC. Given all this I would probably support McCain in the general election. I don’t know what choices I’ll have for the primary in Indiana, so we’ll see the day of what I do.

if I am so fortunate to win your nomination, I will work hard to ensure that the conservative philosophy and principles of our great party — principles that have done so well by the country we love — will again win the votes of a majority of the American people, and defeat any candidate our friends in the other party nominate. I am as confident tonight as I have ever been that we can succeed in November by uniting our party in our determination to keep our country safe, proud, prosperous and free, and by again making a persuasive case to independents and to those enlightened members of the other party that the great Ronald Reagan claimed for our party.

We will do it by standing up forcefully for those principles that have made our party and our country so successful, and by rejecting appeals for retreat and timidity in the face of the challenges of our time, challenges which are our duty and privilege to overcome. If I am the nominee of our party, I will not let anyone take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us some of our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives, or when we turned away from threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. I have lived my adult life with one purpose greater than all others: to keep America safe from all enemies foreign and domestic. And I will never tire of the honor.

I am a Republican because, like you, I want to relieve the American people of the heavy hand of a government that spends too much of your money on things you neither want nor need, while failing to do as well as we should the things none of us can do individually. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must defend our nation’s security wisely and effectively, because the cost of our defense is measured in losses so hard to bear and in the heartbreak of so many families. I am a Republican because, like you, I believe government must respect our values because they are the true source of our strength; and enforce the rule of law, which is the first defense of freedom. I am a Republican because I believe the judges we appoint to the federal bench must understand that enforcing our laws, not making them, is their only responsibility. I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that government should tax us no more than necessary, spend no more than necessary, and keep out of the way of the most industrious, ingenious, and optimistic people in the history of the world . I am a Republican because I believe, like you, that it is the strength, courage, wisdom and patriotism of free people — not the government — who have made this country the extraordinarily successful place it is. My friends, my purpose is to preserve and strengthen our freedom, the freedom I have defended all my adult life, and I will not let anyone or anything deter me.

Nothing in America is inevitable. We are the captains of our fate. We can overcome any challenge as long as we keep our courage and stand by our principles. I intend to make my stand on those principles, and trust in the judgment of the American people I serve. So stand up with me, my friends, stand up, and together let us put America — her strength, her ideals, her future — before all else. It is an honor greater than all others to serve this country, the love of my life, and I thank you from the bottom of heart for helping me serve her a little while longer.

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds and Gateway Pundit for taking note! Check out Lee’s take on the ecumenical reform coalition. While you are here ponder Europe and the non-economic man, take a quick presidential quiz and see who you really agree with. Do some candidates supporters pose a public safety threat? Explore the African Oil Boom and ask yourself why this isn’t on more people’s radar?


Another good point linked from Glenn, Ilya Simon @ The Volokh Conspiracy

Many conservatives either supported or at least refused to aggressively oppose the Bush Administration’s massive expansion of domestic spending, most notably his prescription drug and education plans. They did so in part because conservatives for a long time felt a sense of affinity with Bush and trusted him. There is very little such trust between conservatives and McCain. It will therefore be much more difficult for him to win conservative support for comparable boondoggles.

That, combined with the restraining influence of divided government, will make it much harder for McCain to enact major new statist policies than it was for Bush during the years when he had a Republican majority in Congress. McCain might even end up emphasizing his anti-spending instincts in order to shore up conservative support.

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses to “Post Super Duper Tuesday Reflections - UPDATE”

  1. on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:48 am paul a'barge

    You believe him? Wow.

  2. on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:55 am Sean

    What will anguished Republicans, who are thinking of sitting out the general, or worse, voting for Hillary in protest come November, do if and when Hillary selects a conservative, blue dog-type Democrat for VP? Or, if she can convince him, Independent Joseph Lieberman.

    That makes voting for the Democratic ticket a whole lot easier for disgruntled Republicans.

    After all, Hillary is widely regarded as liberal. Selecting an even MORE liberal VP does not sound like something the Queen of Triangulation would do.

    Hillary/Lieberman vs. McCain/Huckabee or McCain/Giuliani.

    Or, God forbid, Hillary/Harold Ford vs. [doesn’t matter]? She gets the benefit of a black VP, but without Obama’s liberal baggage.

    Just as McCain will tack left after the primaries, so too will Hillary tack right.

    This is a nightmare scenario for Republicans.

  3. on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:32 am Terry

    It isn’t just issues & positions. John McCain has built his entire political career on sneering at and backstabbing conservatives, selling us out time and again in exchange for a favorable mention in the New York Times. Now he’s coming around wanting our money and our votes.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  4. on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:39 am Thesnakeguy

    His actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what he is saying.

  5. on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:47 am mk

    It’s not that he’s a “jerk.”
    It’s not that he’s not a “moderate” Republican.
    It’s not that he’s not a better candidate than Hillary.

    It’s that he’s an egomaniac whose own agenda becomes bedrock “principle.”

    It’s that on the crucial issues of the day –immigration, free speech, appointing judges, tax cuts– he stonewalled his party. No retrospective look at his voting “record” can ameliorate the fact that he was serving himself and not his party when his party needed him.

    It’s that he is an opportunist whose administration will enable the rise of opportunists and “moderates” throughout all the stratum of the Republican organization and drive it leftward for years to come.

  6. on 06 Feb 2008 at 9:55 am Keith_Indy

    As if there aren’t enough opportunists and moderates in the Republican party. Where were the true conservatives during the last 7 years?

    A lot of Republicans bellied up to the trough and passed objectionable bills unto the President.

    Who’s better for the country is what the question is? Not who’s going to be best for the Republican Party. There are a lot of factions in the RP, and they have to step up and stand for the principles of the party, not just the President.

    Who is going to be better for the country?

    A left/liberal/progressive Democrat with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House.

    Or a center/right Republican with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House, and elected Republicans who are not always supportive of the Presidents policies?

  7. on 06 Feb 2008 at 10:21 am Sean

    “Who is going to be better for the country?

    A left/liberal/progressive Democrat with a Democrat majority in both the Senate and House…”

    I think most conservatives that oppose a McCain presidency hope that with control of the Presidency going to the Democrats, that makes retaking the house and Senate much more likely.

    After all, a lot of middle-of-the-road middle American voters will vote for one party as their President, and attempt to counter-balance that vote with a vote for the other party’s canddiate(s) in the Congress.

    A liberal Demcratic Senator and a Republican House and/or Senate, like we had from ‘94 to ‘00, might not be undesirable.

  8. on 06 Feb 2008 at 10:25 am submandave

    BTW, the Instaquote was actually Glenn quoting a Bill Whittle comment. I like Glenn as much as the next guy, but give Bill his due. After all, when was the last time Glenn wrote that much himself about anything. (Heh)

  9. on 06 Feb 2008 at 10:34 am Keith_Indy

    Yes, hoping for gridlock is certainly one alternative.

    Hope is not a business plan though.

    We don’t currently have a Republican House or Senate. The way the system is setup, incumbents have the advantage.

    Some info:,_2008#Races_with_no_incumbents

    Interesting to note, there are 5 Republican Senators who are retiring, Allard - CO, Craig - Idaho, Hagel - Nebraska, Domenici - NM, Warner - VI In the House, it looks like the majority of races without incumbents are also Republicans.

    It’s an awfully large bet to placing that the Senate will become more Republican. And don’t forget, with a Democrat for VP, guess who’s breaking the ties.

  10. on 06 Feb 2008 at 11:50 am DPW

    Why should I vote for McCain in the national election? I live in California and as a Republican my vote is worth about the same as a bucket of warm spit. If my vote counts for nothing, I might as well vote for who I wanted in the first place and not compromise on my principles. We are heading for a socialist country anyway. Who cares. We are in an out of control ride into oblivion. Might as well just get it overwith and go underground.

    My vote is for Thompson/Duncan.

  11. on 06 Feb 2008 at 11:57 am Keith_Indy

    One doesn’t have to vote for the Democrat come November to be anti-McCain. One could simply not vote for President, or vote 3rd party, or an imaginary ticket.

    Of course, turn out for the House and Senate are even more important if one’s hope is a Republican leaning congress putting the brakes on a Democratic President.

  12. on 06 Feb 2008 at 1:01 pm The Fop

    The Senate and the House have zero influence on national security and foreign policy.

    So any conservative who is willing to hand control of those two issues to a “we need to restore America’s image in the world”-”we’re creating more terrorists”-”the war in Iraq has made America less safe”, United Nations worshipping, liberal Democrat, in a post 9/11 world, because McCain is an egomaniac who likes to stick it to conservatives, is about as patriotic as Susan Sarandon.

    “Screw America, screw the West, long live pure as the driven snow conservatism”. Yeah, that’s the ticket….idiots!!

  13. on 06 Feb 2008 at 1:09 pm mk

    Dear Fop,

    “Screw America, screw the West, long live pure as the driven snow conservatism”. Yeah, that’s the ticket….idiots!!

    McCain demonizes his opposition, too, as in calling people who wanted to enforce the border “racists.” The point is that McCain, as President, will not govern from the right; he will govern from the left because that’s where consensus is, that’s where the limelight is, that’s where his positions, excepting a few, lie.

  14. on 06 Feb 2008 at 2:39 pm Keith_Indy

    The “consensus” may be to the left of conservatives, but it isn’t much to the left of center. And it isn’t as far left as where Clinton and Obama both are. Put things into context and McCain isn’t that awful.

    immigration - The border issue is going to be decided more by Congress then by the President.

    free speech - I fear what the Democrats want to do more then what McCain did. With a Democratic President I can imagine the re-instituting of the “Fairness Doctrine,” for talk radio, cable talk shows, and blogs. Not for broadcast tv or newspapers of course, just whatever is hurting the Democrats.

    appointing judges - So you trust that a Democratic President will appoint better judges, or that the Republicans will not compromise or be able to block nominations? Good luck with that.

    tax cuts - Well, I know a Democratic President is going to play around with the tax code to make it more “fair.” I could see this leading to a depression with increased protectionism, and soaking the rich, ie anyone making over 100K ruining the economy.

  15. on 06 Feb 2008 at 3:15 pm mk


    The fault in the arguments for McCain lies with the assumption that the Democrats will be able to do everything they want. They won’t. Republicans will oppose a Democratic President; they won’t oppose a “Republican” President. That’s the danger: McCain will be Clinton-lite, enabling laws to pass that no conservative can support but which will advance the progressive agenda on global warming, illegal immigration, McCain/Feingold, rolling back the tax cuts, etc., more than they will advance a conservative agenda. I feel that’s what McCain apologists are missing in this discussion. They presume the best of a McCain presidency and the worst of a Democratic presidency.

  16. on 06 Feb 2008 at 4:53 pm Lee

    The point is that McCain, as President, will not govern from the right; he will govern from the left because that’s where consensus is

    This is entirely correct. Centrism in a political environment where the center is set substantially to the left, is a governing leftism by another name.

  17. on 06 Feb 2008 at 6:20 pm sisu

    How I learned to stop worrying and love John McCain…

    There’s been plenty of speculation since self-described Democratic-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman started stumping for Sen. John McCain in December that Al Gore’s 2000 runningmate might reprise that role for his Republican friend, the WSJ reported …

  18. on 07 Feb 2008 at 7:57 am Sean

    “The Senate and the House have zero influence on national security and foreign policy.”

    Read a book, moron.

    Why did Gerald Ford not send troops back to South Vietnam when the North re-invaded in 1975, violating the Paris agreement?

    A Democratic Congress, with a veto-proof majority in the Senate, had earlier passed legislation prohibiting the US from ever sending troops, materiel or money anywhere in Southeast Asia without express consent from Congress.

    Yeah, no influence there.

    If the Senate had ever gotten 60 votes to overrule Bush’s veto, it would have essentially done the same in Iraq.

    Congress controls the pursestrings and write legislation. Aside from actually commanding the military, congress decides, vis-a-vis funding, if it goes anywhere.

    Our legislature’s hands are almost everywhere else as well. To think otherwise is pure ignorance of the political system.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Get rewarded at leading casinos.

online casino real money usa