All Aboard, Or Toss Me A Line?

I find this devilishly delightful. Bill Kristol attempts to rally conservatives to McCain, via the New York Times. Unfortunately, the vehicle sort of tips his hand. Obviously he's more interested in rallying DC-types and elitists many grassroots conservatives have no more regard for than John McCain. And while I certainly can't speak for all conservatives, I know that many having been watching Kristol and his partner Fred Barnes on Fox, attempting the same thing today, have given up on these two a long time ago.

Some conservatives can close their eyes to all this. They can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

Outside the beltway, a case could be made that Kristol and many others have been invited out of a position of responsibility, as regards the conservative base. Certainly we share a common goal of winning in Iraq. But perhaps little else. Why should conservatives rally to support a candidate intent on marginalizing them for years? Many of us might prefer to wander the wilderness with our principles intact, as opposed to propping up the Republican machine which ultimately gives Kristol his power base.

Sounds to me like a one-sided deal. But then, that's nothing new, seeing as how it's coming from a Republican in DC. The grassroots may indeed go a wandering. I wonder where Kristol will go, now that many might prefer he take a hike, too?

Comments

[seekeronos]

Juan McCain Swiftboat ... or meanies picking on Ol' Blue Dog Johnny Mac?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5dPwegqgDU

You decide!

[shunha7878]

temper tantrum. There are those words I knew would be used, but I thought it would be after McCain lost.

[el gordo]

You know, I´m starting to agree with Kristol. And I´m not even for McCain! But I´d rather have an argument with a reasonable adult than put up with this bunker mentality. Traitors, traitors everywhere!
Change a few words and it´s like the left-wing moonbat fewer swamps here. You are investing far too much emotion. That´s not conservative. Those despised "Republicans in DC" have been doing darn good work in Congress recently. But that´s just dealing with the real world.

[Dan Riehl]

It's a free world, gordo - vote as you want. There are some good conservatives in DC doing good work. But if you can't see what the establishment is about - heh - like I said, free world. The real world is what you make it. SOunds like some would rather just give up. So, don't complain as many of the fundamentals of this Republican go down the drain.

[Mark]

Gordo-
Who are the people throwing around advice like "grow up" "don't throw a temper tantrum", "just accept it" and aspersions like "party purity uber alles".

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/useful_idiots/the_conservativ.php

Yes, we're Nazi's because we don't want Bob Dole without the charm, more moderate justices who will vote for Kelo and McCain Feingold because it feels right, a shocking attack on the first amendment, and importing a new welfare class to vote for a massive extension of the nanny state. We should all just shut up and eat our sh*t sandwich for the good of the party because elephant sh*t tastes so much better than donkey sh*t. (It's bigger and more pungent! - Now with a side of waffles!)

Excuse me, but McCain has yet to win a plurality of his would be base in ANY primary. Maybe all these newly offended "adults" should reexamine how "electable" he is if he can only gain the nomination by gaming blue state primaries with people who have no intention to vote for him in November. I suppose these people think that winning NY and NJ in primaries tommorrow translates into winning NY & NJ in November. Meanwhile, CA is likely to decimate that calculus tommorrow.

I care about the country, which is why I want to show up in Nov. with a candidate that will force Americans to choose between amnesty or not, (huge majorities are against it), 21st century capitalism vs. 20th century creaking socialism, and winning a war that has been going well for 12 months vs. letting it slip into chaos. How 'bout we take some guidance from Ronnie's when all of his advisors were pushing him to advance detente: "How about we WIN and they LOSE!"

[docweasel]

You know, none of you Romney backers address the fact that had Romney not spent 35 million of his own money, its quite likely he would not still be in the race, and Guiliani, Thompson and other contenders might very well still be in. Huckabee would be in better shape. McCain's resurgence is all the more astounding when you consider he was broke a few months ago and his staff worked without pay.

Its in no one's interest for us to have a plutocracy, and one of the complaints I'm hearing from late-state voters is that they don't get a say and never even got a chance to vote for Rudy or Fred. Well, they did get a chance, with their dollars, but Romney had the power to basically disenfranchise all those voters in last primary states by dipping into his own pocket and off-setting populist support with his own personal finances.

This is un-American, un-Democratic and paves the way for multi-millionaires (like John Kerry, I might add) to stick around a bit longer during the ebb and flow and ups and downs of the campaign hoping for events to fall in their favor. One of the few ways late primary voters can pick a preference is to throw their pittance to their man, and hope it helps him make it to their state. When someone has such ungodly personal assets as Romney, who has talked about a 35 million ad buy for Feb 5 (there are mixed reports if he is going to throw good money after back) but the very fact he has the luxury to do this is very un-Democratic and wrong. It subverts the process and de facto disenfranchises millions of votes. Fred had great online support and contributions, but Romney dipped into his pocket and easily negated Fred's contributions. Same with Huckabee.

Do we want a plutocracy? Do we want a guy who can stick out the tough times merely by using his own funds, regardless of whether or not there is a base of support that justifies his standings.

[Mark]

Doc's argument: Money == BAD : Romney(Money) :: Romney == bad.

(a.k.a., McCain/Feingold was a great idea! Forget the first amendment, we have oligarchies to smash!)

Yes, Republicans hate self-made millionaires (er -running pig dog capitalists) that started reactionary tools of oppression like Home Depot. (Are you sure you don't work for the DNC, Doc?)

The preferred path to plutocracy is to marry a bottling heiress with several hundred million dollars. (Hmmm, bottle heiress, ketchup heiress... the coincidences between the "electable" Senators who served in Vietnam just keep piling up.

Fact 1: Romney raised more money from contributors than any other GOP candidate.

Fact 2: We are Republicans. We like to know that our leaders could manage to run a lemonade stand for a week without filing for Chapter 11.

[el gordo]

Mark, I didn´t call anyone a Nazi. You chose to use that word. I´d never say that and I don´t mean that.

It´s not that I have any illusions about McCain. I prefer Romney, although both of them have serious shortcomings.

My problem is that you are so ready to kick good, serious people out of the movement (and assume sinister agendas on their part) just because they disagree. From Victor Davis Hanson to Jonah Goldberg to William Kristol - are they all idiots? All liberals and RINOs? Really? I wish we had more good, articulate people such as these.

[Fred Beloit]

To understand an argument, one has to look at the assumptions underlying them. In this case the argument is McCain is a good conservative and should now be supported by all conservatives because he is an 84% conservative and the alternative to him is Obama/Clinton.

1st, the big primaries are today, McCain is not yet the nominee. There is no need to support him today as a good party member.
2nd, who is more likely to beat Clinton/Obama? To me this is an unknown. Conservatives may or may not stay home or may if McCain is the candidate. Will "moderate" republicans stay home if Romney is the candidate? No, I don't think so. Haven't heard anyone say that they would.
3rd, where does this 83% figure come from and what does it mean? In 4/2005 the ACU said this:

"All of the highly qualified filibustered nominees deserve a fair up-or-down floor vote if the Senate is to fulfill its obligation under the Constitution. Republicans cannot permit a minority to change the rules and raise the bar to 60 votes needed to confirm judges. In 214 years of its history, this has never been the custom of the Senate. Such a change would be intolerable.

"ACU urges Majority leader Bill Frist to move forward with his plans to restore fairness to the process. ACU also urges all Republicans as well as fair-minded Democrats to support the Majority Leader," Keene said. "Simple fairness requires all nominees to be given an up-or-down vote."

ACU's annual Rating of Congress has been published for 34 years. The Ratings can be viewed at www.acuratings.org."
Yrs
2005 2004 Service Overall
SESSIONS 100 96 9 98
McCAIN 80 72 23 83*
KYL 100 00 19 97
ALLARD 96 96 15 96
MARTINEZ 100 NA 1 96
CHAMBLISS 96 96 11 94
CRAPO 100 92 13 93
BROWNBACK 100 96 11 95
McCONNELL 100 96 21 90
BUNNING 92 100 19 95
VITTER 96 96 7 94
LOTT 91 96 33 93
INHOFE 100 100 19 97

And more over 90%

4th, some people are using big names to support their arguments, eg, Victor David Hanson. This argument goes this way: I like X, X says Y, Y must be correct. This is no argument whatever and is resorted to in desperation.
5th, does any individual or group for any reason have the right to tell me that I MUST vote for someone I do not want to be in the office, or otherwise I am dooming that individual or group. Not without overwhelming evidence they don't. I don't see this overwhelming evidence. I see very little evidence.

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry about the table organization above. It was spaced as I wanted it until I pressed post. A common problem all through the blogosphere.

[Mark]

El Gordo,

I didn't say you said 'Nazi'. What I said was that people like Fred Barnes ("Grow Up"), Bill Kristol ("temper tantrum"), "just accept it" - a.k.a. settle for what you got, because via Kristol "They might not invite us back". (What Rubbish. It's analogous to the guy who refused to keep drinking getting blamed for the drunk that puked on the guest of honor.) And yes, "party purity uber alles" is clearly a Nazi reference. You see, we value purity (no, we value clarity), so expecting our leaders to enforce the law is a hop and a skip to putting illegals in concentration camps because we must be Nazis and that's what Nazi's do.

I am not quick to throw people out of the party, but these commentators (open borders to a man) tell us to pipe down and just be thankful that our elephant patty isn't a donkey patty. They've aligned themselves with the office holding leadership that lost 2006 because they acted like democrats, who now tell us they know how to win in November because they've found a democrat that can win and they've got a few polls to prove it.

Win what? More justices that would support Kelo and McCain Feingold? The imprimatur of amnesty that once given, can never be taken back? If it's a DNC program it can be scaled back or diminished as an excess of the left, like welfare. If it's a GOP program it will be the new floor upon which we build the future.

And yes, senators like Specter, Hagel, Chaffee, Snow, Warner and Ted Stevens deserve to be fired and replaced by younger blood that will do something surprising, like actually advance Republican interests.