Given that I believe the traditional GOP approach to voters has been based upon a three-legged stool - as Mark Levin discusses here, and it's fair to say there's some tension within the various groups this year - have you given any thought to where you actually stand in this regard?
Using "conservatism" as the benchmark, I'd position myself this way. I am a fiscal conservative (small government, low taxes); not a warmonger, but definitely a defense hawk (which reveals another divide, as in Ron Paul, who is conservative/libertarian but with what some would call an isolationist streak); and I'm a social moderate, but with respect for, and without fear of the GOP's Evangelical wing. Loosely interpreted - I think values are important in society and government can help set the tone, without decree. As neatly as I can, that about sums me up.
So, where do you stand within this approach? Have you given it much thought? Given some divides across the base, it could be important to the future of the GOP.
Lastly, given a weighting across these three wings, it's likely to determine what type of politician gets your vote. For some right now, foreign policy might trump everything else. I think my small government, low tax priorities are what give me the most concern with McCain. I see him as a big government guy with an authoritarian streak, one who thinks government can solve too many things and has the right to interfere. I'd list Global Warming and Campaign Finance as indicative of this, for a start.
I also view him as weak on terror, given his stance on Guantanamo and interrogations. I realize others will disagree. So, where do you stand on three legs?
I've been reading you more and more lately because your posts have expressed my thoughts much better than I have been able to express them myself. Now I know why. Your three stools stance is exactly what I would have written about myself.
I cannot vote for McCain. I consider myself a die-hard conservative. I am not seeking the perfect candidate, by a long shot. I do have a limit on imperfection though. McCain and Huck were over the limit.
I agree that McCain is going to be weak on terror. He talks a big game, but has no plan to continue to expand the fight to the enemy. How could he when he is willing to forego intelligence from harsh interrogation of illegal combatants and is so concerned about world opinion that he would close Gitmo just to look nice, causing us to release most of the detainees and giving constitutional protections to those that we do not release?
I think there are circumstances where Hillary might be better, simply because she is above all else a political (poll driven) animal. On some issues the polls will point to policy that will be more favorable to me than the positions that McCain has claimed (immigration, for instance). There is also the fact that if loony liberal policies are going to be adopted - I would rather they be adopted by someone with a "D" after their name. Finally, McCain needed to be punished by the party for McAmnesty - not rewarded with its highest honor (nomination for the presidency). More in another comment perhaps...
Posted by: Brian | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I can't tolerate McCain, so I joined the
"Republicans for Obama" yesterday. There's an incredible amount of republicans that'll vote for Obama. Pretty Cool.
Posted by: levi | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Guess some folks would vote for ole Joe Stalin if he were still around. Can you say, over the top? Cool. Hope you are making good money, levi, Obama is gonna need it to pay the insurance companies to insure young people like you who don't really need insurance.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 12:18 PM
So who endorces MacAss? The establishment. They want to remain on the payroll. phil gram you disgraced yourself.
Are 6 months of "I intend..as a POW...Reagon conservative...My friends...etc" going to erase a decade of proformance? Who're gonna belive, me or your lieying eyes?
I will not vote for this person. I will just leave that space black on the ballot unless he pisses me off more then now...
Posted by: serfer62 | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 01:08 PM
I'm kind of at the center of the stool; pretty strong on national security issues, very economically conservative (when your dad owns his own business and tells you the joys of a typical day, it's hard not to be), and socially conservative due to religion and my personal beliefs.
Not only those things though - I also believe in conservative governance, and the rule of law. Where does that fit in, here? If someone wants to change how we define marriage (to pick an issue), they are welcome to try by convincing their representatives or their fellow voters to work to change it. But not by running to a sympathetic judge. I disagree with the idea of gay marriage, but if my side of the argument loses in the legislature or at the polls, I will accept it and deal with it, because I respect the rule of law.
As for 2008 - I will be voting for McCain, but without much enthusiasm. The biggest reason is simply this - the Democrats have told me, again and again and again, that there is no place for me or my views among them. McCain isn't trying to cultivate my support, but there isn't a better place to go. Obama and Clinton really don't care what I have to say.
Posted by: Tyler | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Your thoughts mimic my own. Leave morality to the pulpits in my opinion. When it comes to gay marriage I am somewhat torn. On the one hand, I figure if they love each other, what can it hurt and it will likely lead to more monogamous relationships and less spread of disease.
On the other hand, I am not sure the deliterious effects it may have on society as a whole. If you look throughout history, any society that allowed homosexuality to run amok crumbled shortly thereafter. It's one of those things that I am not sure how to feel about it because I do not have enough information. I believe that whatever one does in their private life, so long as it does not harm society, is fine.
I feel the same about illegal drugs. 1/2 our prisons are filled with drug dealers. If this were not illegal and was catually regulated as alcohol is, I do not think you would have any more addicts than you do now and, by removing the profit motive, drastically reduce crime.
I do not find someone using heroin any more "immoral" than someone smoking a cigarette. As a matter of fact, the cigarettes may be more harmful overall to society.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Within the last two years, I've grown to be more of a defense hawk, but with limitations on how far to intervene (i.e. 100 years do not tickle me very nicely). Torturing enemy combatants and keeping them offshore at Gitmo is fine - killing them outright is even better.
I've also grown considerably more socially conservative in that time as well (probably as a result of my salvation and conversion to Christianity). However, I also realize that not everyone can be expected to live up to Christian ideals, especially without having Christ in them. In other words, I won't look to burn any gays or atheists at the stake... but I'll be very vocal against the Clintons trying to sneak in another Dr. Jocelyn Elders to teach my kids unsavory things that they might not be ready to hear at their age.
And I'm definitely a fiscal conservative. I'm entranced by the sound of McCain's almighty anti-pork veto pen (which he tells us he received from Heaven from then hands of Ronaldus Magnus himself) ... but his desire to play the "cap-n-trade" shells game while wrecking what's left of our economy and causing even more offshoring of our labour... well, it leaves me high and dry.
My stats as a conservative might look like this: - more "X"s mean more conservative. 0/12 is Lincoln Chafee, 5/10 is middle-of-the-road purple moderate, 10/12 would be Jeff Sessions, and 12/12 would be John Birch territory.
Federalism and government size are not necessarily a "leg" in its own right, but a function of the other three legs. Perhaps it is the bracing chunks of wood that bind the other three legs in place?
[X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][ ][ ]::[ ][ ] 8/12 - Social Issues
[X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][ ]::[ ][ ] 9/12 - Financial/Economic Issues
[X][X][X][X][X][X][X][ ][ ][ ]::[ ][ ] 7/12 - Military/Defense Issues
[X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][X][ ]::[ ][ ] 9/12 - Federalism/Government Size
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Put very simply, I believe in the Patriarchy. Phillip Longman, a liberal, encapsulated very well what it is from his article, "The Return of the Patriarchy":
"Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.
Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents' investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.
Through a process of cultural evolution, societies that adopted this particular social system -- which involves far more than simple male domination -- maximized their population and therefore their power, whereas those that didn't were either overrun or absorbed. This cycle in human history may be obnoxious to the enlightened, but it is set to make a comeback."
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy
Most conservative ideas about a well ordered society support the Patriarchy, but many conservatives believe that full throated capitalism can be harmful: we see this most obviously with large influxes of immigration, legal and illegal, to keep wages down for businesses. This undermines social cohesion and harms a man's ability to provide for his family. Another thing to chew on: in the fifties, the tax system was structured so that families with children paid the least, in fact, it tended to be redistributed to the large middle-class families. By the early 70's, ironically approaching Roe vs. Wade, middle class families with children were bearing the brunt of taxation. All conservatives can agree that taxes on families should be kept to a minimum, but what of rewarding families like in the fifties? I don't know.
Posted by: Emily | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 02:01 PM
"Torturing enemy combatants and keeping them offshore at Gitmo is fine - killing them outright is even better."
Wait until Almighty Lord Jeebus hears what you said. He's gonna strike you dead. If it's raining, don't go stand under a tree, Jeebus will hit you with a lightning bolt.
Posted by: chris | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 02:08 PM
I didn't touch on military/defense issues, but in that article Longman does, however, focusing more on the ability and power of the military to defend a nation. It's taken for granted that a Patriarchal society appreciates greatly the need to defend itself. Empire, nation building isn't remarked upon. Longman himself has a bias that capitalism hurts the Patriarchy while I don't buy that. It can serve patriarchal interests or undermine them, depending on our leaders.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy
Posted by: Emily | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Don't worry for me, Boob/chris.
I don't go around torturing or killing our enemies or holding them captive. That is the job of our lawfully constituted and appointed armed services, the job of the nation to protect its citizens from all threats foreign and domestic.
And it is for this reason that the Lord commanded us "Thou shalt not murder", but gives free reign for nations to defend themselves when attacked.
The military also serves as a revenger of justice against our enemies as well: for with it, God does use other nations to punish disobedient and wicked nations.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 02:22 PM
God also seems to punish poor people in trailer parks by sending them tornadoes. Quite a vengeful God you have there.
Posted by: chris | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 02:53 PM
You can't claim to be fiscal conservatives if every time you get in office, you set new deficit records.
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
If you cut taxes, but never cut spending, that's not fiscal conservatism.
Looks like the Republicans can't even balance the budget for the NRCC.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8398.html
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 03:03 PM
oh boy have i given it a lot of thought. my choices or favorites provide the answer. i liked duncan hunter, rudy and mccain. while that may sound strange to some, it's really not. i'm the defense, law & order, war, military leg.
Posted by: tally | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 04:18 PM
"--- You can't claim to be fiscal conservatives if every time you get in office, you set new deficit records. ---"
No disagreement there, WPE.
However, it has to start somewhere. Killing unnecessary pork (like all the stuff tacked on to recent defense spending bills) and reducing our troop commitments in Europe and East Asia would be a nice start.
Maybe cutting back on things like S-CHIP and payments to the UN and the National Endowment for the Arts too.
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 04:49 PM
"If you cut taxes, but never cut spending, that's not fiscal conservatism."
Good point, wpe, and that is the major problem I have with Bush and all the "compassionate conservatives". They are not conservative in the classical sense, nor do they really believe in conservatism. They are moderates. That is why we are having this fight right now, a fight for the soul of the Republican Party.
And the Republican Party has always had the moderate/liberal wing, it just has not been able to fully manifest itself because it is the minority in the party, much like conservatives are a minority in the Democratic Party. But two candidates dividing the conservative vote has allowed a moderate to become the candidate, thus leaving us in a quandary. Imagine Zell Miller leading the Democrats, and you get an idea how many of us feel about McCain.
Posted by: templar knight | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 05:21 PM
I was reading where Arlen Specter, a senior Republican senator wants the NFL to explain why it destroyed evidence from the New England Patriot cheating scandal. He is concerned about the antitrust exemption in the NFL. We now have all the steroid investigations use gong on in sports... This is what your elected officials do all day... Neither which helps to protect the American's people freedom....I think we need to have a THOROUGH INVESTIGATION of the cable news media...The most corrupt thing facing the American public....The elected officials are afraid to face the real problems in America...I suggest you call your senator or your representative....This is much more important for FREEDOM than what is going on in the entertainment industry....
Posted by: Ken | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 05:48 PM
WPE
It's an almost impossible task to be fiscally responsible anything when the system is overpopulated with Post-WWII babyboomers weened on Big Daddy's Government teet from the time they were born and are about to retire in the lifestyle of Dennis Hopper's dreams.
No way to get around an aging demographic, unless you do to the eldery what the abortionist did the last thirty years to babies.
Posted by: syn | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 06:35 PM
My convictions are more in line with Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul. Though Paul goes over board on his
anti Iraq war stance, (for me anyway) we are already there let's finish the job.
The three legs are the three branches of our government.
Our Founding Fathers did the hard work, our job is to make sure that the enemy within our government
foreign and domestic don't succeed.
Posted by: Harvey | Friday, February 08, 2008 at 07:32 PM
This debate is priceless!
Maybe I'm just a really old guy, but I vaguely remember a time when the GOP was the party of fiscal responsibility and family values. You really don't hear about that anymore since their representatives spent all the money and started fucking the help.
Let's hear a big CPAC cheer for the guys who really destroyed what the Republican Party was supposed to stand for, President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Cutting taxes and increasing spending when the country is at war didn't work out all that well when LBJ did it? But I don't remember all of you whelps pointing that out in 2004. Maybe I'm wrong, but an outcry then was sorely lacking.
Look, anybody who thinks that McCain is going to lose this election is an idiot! If the Democrats are even halfway smart, they won't mention McCain by name at all.
The fact is that all third-term bids for the White House are referendums on the incumbent. That's the way it was with Clinton in 2000 and Reagan in '88. If you're really interested in how '08 is going to play out, look at '76. Carter almost never mentioned Jerry Ford by name, but my, how the name Richard Nixon was bandied about.
This race is going to be about Bush and there's very little in his 30% approval rating that would protect anyone the GOP nominated.
There is however one thing that stands out in my mind about this idiotic Coulter-Limbaugh meme that's been floating about Hillary being better than McCain. It proves that the right are complete hypocrites about the war. If I remember correctly, 2002, '04 and '06 were all about how the Democrats were spinless surrender monkeys. But now Hillary's better for the country than one of the only people in the party who was to Bush's right on Iraq?
Are you people seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton would be better on the war than John Kerry or Al Gore?
Or is it that Hillary being bad for the country is okay if she turns out to be good for the neandrathal, shithead movement of talk-radio losers? That's endlessly patriotic.
Did somebody redefine "treason" when I wasn't looking?
Posted by: skippystalin | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Skippystalin
Bush isn't on the ballot.
You say you're an old guy but I don't know how old you are however I do know you're BDS is in need of some medication.
Take a Happy pill and chill a while....you should be thanking Bush, remember the Big Budget Prescription Drug Spending is for you.
Posted by: syn | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 07:02 AM
syn caught you red-handed, skippy. No old guy uses the F-word in the first paragraph of a publicly published piece. Wasn't brought up that way. You're just another jive-a-- punk sock puppet with a severe case of BDS.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Fred and Syn,
Obviously, you have no idea how politics works. Running against the incumbent if said incumbent has a 30% approval rating and a history of losing both houses of Congress is a time-honored tradition. Just who do you think that candidate Bush was talking about when he promised to restore "honor and dignity to the Oval Office", anyway? Al Gore?
Richard Nixon wasn't on the ballot in 1976, but his name was used to great effect. Why run against Ford when you've got Nixon.
Furthermore, suggesting that President Bush betrayed conservatives every chance he got is "Bush Derangement Syndrome" makes assaulting McCain intellectually interesting.
Let's review the record, shall we?
McCain passed the BCRA, but he didn't sign it. I wonder who did? If nothing else, McCain believed it to be constitutional, which Bush said it wasn't as he signed it into law. So much for his oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution.
Bush campaigned on liberalizing immigration twice, the second time rather prominently. Where is it that you suppose McCain/Kennedy came from and do you think that the president's own Director of Homeland Security went off of the reservation all on his own in supporting it?
McCain is actually to Bush's right on Iraq and always has been.
If you don't think that the Democrats are going to use the Bush record on all the above (to say nothing about fiscal responsibility), then I would suggest that I'm not the one in need of pills, happy or otherwise.
By the way, I'm not the kind of stupid f------ p---- who uses slashes instead of letters to pretend that I'm somehow better than someone who uses actual letters to say pricessly the same thing.
Posted by: skippystalin | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 03:47 PM
And you're not an old Republican either, though you are verbose...like, like...nowingker, and a few other sock puppets come to mind to mind. By the way, you took the knowledge "of how politics work" almost verbatim right off another blog today didn't you? DIDN'T YOU? This was a favorite device of nowingker's who also liked to say things in Princessly (pricelessly, precisesly, etc) the same way. Oh my g--dn-ss gr-cious your love of Anglo-Saxon will not stand a man who knows how politics works in very good stead on the campaign trail. Tell me, to what offices have you been elected...I asked, to what offices have you been elected?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 05:27 PM
"It's an almost impossible task to be fiscally responsible anything when the system is overpopulated with Post-WWII babyboomers weened on Big Daddy's Government teet from the time they were born and are about to retire in the lifestyle of Dennis Hopper's dreams.
No, it's impossible to be fiscally responsible if you insist on cutting taxes but not cutting any programs. Cutting taxes has become a litmus test for conservative support. Look what's going on with McCain because over his Bush Tax Cut votes. Unfortunately, conservatives haven't been nearly as enthusiasic in demanding spending cuts to accompany tax cuts. You want to start blaming demographic groups for the fiscal mess we're in, you can start with conservatives who preach the gospel of tax cuts but refuse any restraint on the spending side. The deficit chart shows Republican Administrations have by far been the biggest deficit spenders.
1990, Congress put in PayGo to try to control that very problem. The reins were loosened somewhat during the Clinton budget surpluses, then the Bush Administration completely abandoned it. Witness the Medicare bill. Now that was irresponsible.
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Saturday, February 09, 2008 at 06:31 PM
So Medicare-D was a bad thing, WPE?
I thought the liberals were all happy about Big Gubmint HealthCare schemes...
I say let's go back to the Calvin Coolidge days of small government conservatism. And it may be that coming economic collapse forces us to do just that.
Posted by: seekeronos | Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 11:16 PM