Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan, and the Goldilocks Republicans
As Fred Thompson exits, stage right, from the GOP presidential primaries, he appears to take with him the last hope of some Republicans that the era of Ronald Reagan could be recreated, and that a reasonable facsimile of the Gipper might be constructed and launched at the once again inevitable-seeming dark moon that is Hillary Clinton.
A quick look around the political internet forums reveals a subdued mood on the right. There is mild teeth-gnashing in some quarters about Thompson’s lethargic tease, but the majority seem to be willing to wish him well. Half are hoping he might be the eventual bottom of the GOP ticket, which — according to some — may well have been his goal all along.
If it was indeed Thompson’s goal to use the primary as a veep audition, the odd note of indifference that ran through his campaign like an off-key bass line suddenly makes sense, and so does his withdrawal. To continue to run for an office he did not truly want, while right-wing voices were beginning to urge donations on his behalf, would have emphasized the questionable ethics of the whole endeavor. And as anyone who is paying attention knows, the GOP “base” — so active in the primaries — is seeking nothing less than a paragon of ethical, moral, fiscal, social, and spiritual perfection for 2008.
Spend a little time reading right-wing blogs and forums or listen to callers on some talk radio programs, and one can easily get the impression that 2008 will be the year of The Great Goldilocks Republican Sit-Out, because — to many on the right — no one currently running for the Oval Office is worthy of their vote: “This guy is too hard on assault rifles! This guy is too soft on illegal immigration! This guy is too holy! This guy sins too much! This guy wears funny underwear! This guy wears a dress! This guy is too much like John McCain! Wait! This guy is John McCain!”
To the Goldilocks Republicans, none of the candidates is the right temperature, none of them a comfortable fit. But since when does a candidate have to be “just right” before a voter can pull the lever for him? If a presidential candidate has to conform himself or herself to a hand-to-glove fit with every voter before a precious chad can be poked through, then we as an electorate are setting ourselves up to be pandered to and lied to, flip-flopped and flim-flammed, because there is no other way for even the most motivated candidate to jump through so many hoops without faltering.
I wonder, though, if even the Ronald Reagan of 1988 would have been acceptable to the Goldilocks Republicans of today. In his ’88 State of the Union Address, Reagan said:
This year, we have it within our power to take a major step toward a growing global economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches to all the free nations of this Earth. I’m speaking of the historic Free Trade Agreement negotiated between our country and Canada. … We’re determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Next month I will be traveling to Mexico where trade matters will be of foremost concern. … Our goal must be a day when the free flow of trade — from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle — unites the people of the Western Hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange; when all borders become what the U.S.-Canadian border so long has been — a meeting place, rather than a dividing line.
In 2008 that Reagan policy is being described by many in the Republican base as a plan to “surrender U.S. sovereignty to a North American Union” that will “erase our borders.” And the plan is no longer Visionary Reagan Leadership; it is yet another betrayal — in a long list of betrayals — by George W. Bush, the RINO whose “compassionate conservatism” is destroying America.
Republican policy has not changed much between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. America still extends a helping hand to countries in need. The tax cuts authored by both presidents brought us out of recession. Foreign oil is still a problem; the Middle East is a bigger problem, in ways that Ronald Reagan probably never imagined back when his administration — often at the behest of the CIA — responded to multiple bombings and aggressive actions in that region by removing troops and refusing to set up permanent bases.
Circumstances are different in a post-9/11 world, of course, but President Bush has not moved so far left of President Reagan, not even on the issue of illegal immigration, about which Reagan once wrote:
The idea of a North American accord has been mine for many, many years. I have seen presidents, both Democrat and Republican, approach our neighbors with pre-concocted plans in which their only input is to vote “yes.”
Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. … I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas — how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence.
Even Ronald Reagan couldn’t utter those lines today without upsetting the base.
Clearly, dissatisfaction with the candidates of Primary ’08 is less about the candidates and more about the slow-but-steady hard-right drift that has occurred within the Republican Party over the past decade, one that mirrors the Democrat drift hard-to-portside.
Internet political forums and talk radio are important and valuable tools for the free expression and exchange of ideas, but perhaps, with their daily repetitions of “unswerving conservative principles,” these echo chambers have helped create the Goldilocks Republicans. Perhaps they have brought us to this point, unimaginable twenty years ago, where — during the primaries — some conservatives would seriously entertain the notion of giving up their vote in order to remain true to principles which — in 1988 — they didn’t even know they had.
A primary season is a lot like shopping at the green grocers. It is a chance to sort through the bins and decide whether the kumquat, the berries, or the banana will appeal to the greatest number of diners, and hope even the “fussy” eaters can shrug and make do with the selection for at least one four-year meal.
This season, with the menu still unchosen, some Goldilocksers are wrinkling their noses at the selection and threatening to throw up or to leave the table, no matter what is served. They are, in essence, declaring that their portion — their vote — may as well be thrown into the compost. They are heading to bed, where they will dream of a brokered convention and the second coming of Ronaldus Magnus — or what their fond remembrances of him have evolved to — until the bears come home, and find them sleeping.
There is a candidate! His name is Jerry Curry! http://www.curryforamerica.com He announced his candidacy yesterday in Oklahoma.
I’ve got news for you. I am not looking for the second Ronald Reagan, even though I voted for him twice.
I am sick to death about “everybody” claiming to be his only begotten son too.
The only similarity I was looking for, was his ability to communicate. Other than that, I just wanted the person to be someone who was honestly living in their own skin, not someone else’s.
Many of those you are calling Goldilocks Republicans, aren’t evangelicals or one issue voters and are tired of voting for those who pander to them.
I don’t see voting for someone who is no different than a Democrat (and by that I mean actual deed, not rhetoric) “saves” anyone or this country.
Oh, a tough gal, eh? Tell us off. The Party knows best. Sure they do. That’s why they had such a success last election. Sure, you’re smart. We’re dumb. Got it.
“And as anyone who is paying attention knows, the GOP “base” – so active in the primaries – is seeking nothing less than a paragon of ethical, moral, fiscal, social, and spiritual perfection for 2008.” [Smear # 1]
“To the Goldilocks Republicans…” [Smear # 2]
“In 2008 that Reagan policy is being described by many in the Republican base as a plan to “surrender U.S. sovereignty to a North American Union”" [How many? Smear # 3]
“…the slow-but-steady hard-right drift that has occurred within the Republican Party…” [Yeah, all the candidates are "hard right". Smear # 4]
Give me a candidate that actually believes in the 2nd Amendment, believes we have to win in the Mideast, and believes in stopping illegal immigration. 3 Issues – and the 1st 2 are NON negotiable
We see this every election cycle. “All you people should just surrender to my point of view”. I’m glad that Anchoress wasn’t around in 1776 to advise our Founding Fathers to ‘just get along and play nice, stop being so contentious and unreasonable’.
The goal is to elect a principled leader – not a mediator. Failing that, we should at least elect someone who understands the Constitution and takes their oaths of office seriously. The Constitution’s Article IV section IV is not a starting point for negotiation. There is no ‘unless there is a buck to made’ escape clause written into the Constitution.
I fully understand that spending taxpayer money to buy re-election and adulation is a lot more fun than respecting the Constitution and enforcing existing law, but too bad. Oaths still mean something to some of us.
Fred Thompson was just right to me, but as a “FredHead” bemoaning that the only true conservative competing for the Republican nomination has withdrawn his candidacy, I fear that conservatism itself is on its death bed. It was my hope that the American “silent majority” of conservatives still existed, and that they would unite behind Thompson to defeat whichever of the far-left-of-center Democrats.
Instead, multifariousness of political viewpoint on the Republican side appears to have diluted the strength of core conservative values previously respected and held in common. Some even assert that Thompson is not conservative based upon his CFR membership or lobbying activity, a conclusion based on an unsound rationale.
With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the other Republican candidates are flip-floppers and/or not consistent conservatives by any measure. The problem with Ron Paul is that some of his specific remedies for what ails our nation amount to the political equivalent of medical quackery. His plan to abolish the Federal Reserve system and return the U.S. to the gold standard is dangerous. A foreign policy of “non-interventionism” amounts to utopian silliness dressed up in outdated language. Nevertheless, Ron Paul may be more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but at least he is consistent and principled. Regardless, divided the Republican party falls. Hillary may now just landslide to victory against McCain, Romney, Huckabee or Juliani, as an unenthusiastic base of conservative voters takes a “none of the above” stance.
If memory serves, it was the Ross Perot dilution factor that propelled Bill Clinton to victory. At least the Ron Paul supporters will be happy with the withdrawal of troops from “foreign entanglement” as the Democrat president facilitates the retreat from Iraq. The tragedy is that not enough of us realize that the fate of the middle east (and by extension much of the free world) depends on the establishment of a stable government in Iraq; failure to see through the confrontation with Jihadistan on the Iraqi front will only postpone the reckoning with stronger, more emboldened enemies who knows where and when.
No doubt contributing to the death of conservatism is the slimey state of journalism in America. So-called “newspapers” and “news wires” are driven to spew dezinformatzia for the sake of a political agenda. So called cable/tv “news programs” are driven to produce content that will attract the most viewers for the sake of ratings, even if their slogan is “fair and balanced”. There is plenty of “free speech” out there, especially on the radio, but unbiased delivery of news is missing in action. I wonder how many Americans even realize this.
So even though Fred Thompson may be just right to be POTUS from a principled, conservative point of view on every issue, his candidacy goes down & out because he doesn’t have enough money to cut through it all and provide a refresher course for the republican party primary voters whom are apparantly abandoning conservatism or at least forgetting to bring it with them to the voting booth.
With the Clintons back in the White House, conservatism will no doubt require hospice. Perhaps that will lead to a cure, and conservatism will rise back up like a phoenix to reclaim the hearts and minds of Americans. What a price to pay for a return to righteousness.
Ugh. I held my nose and voted Lincoln Chafee in the last election because of constant scolding like this. I felt soiled, he lost anyway AND he quit the party.
Not again.
Well, not if it’s McCain or Huckabee, anyway.
Sorry, but accepting half conservative RINOs is exactly what brought us George Bush and has nearly destroyed the Conservative movement. I do give Bush credit for sticking to his beliefs and in that area he probably is the best president in a long time but when it came to controlling spending and limiting the size of government he was a complete failure.
Look at what happened to the Democratic party after the Nader third party candidacy was seen as costing them the election. The entire Democratic field shifted further to the left. Perhaps a 55%(D) 45%(R) 10%(Libertarian) is what the country needs.
Another scolding from the ‘Party Uber Alles’ crowd. How Dull.
I liked Reagan, but I’m not looking for a Second Coming – just a pricipled conservative willing to put up a good fight.
McCain and Hucklebee are found lacking. The country, and the GOP, would be better off if either never get elected.
First VDH, and now the Anchoress. Wonder how long before someone realizes that treating unhappy conservative voters like silly blonde children turning up their nose at proffered porridge is counter-productive?
Every time we’re told that we’re just being silly for refusing to give the pig our lipstick. It just makes us more sure that we should stiff the party that won’t take us seriously.
The only downside with taking our ball and going home is the fact that the results will inevitably play in the MSM like a resounding defeat for conservatism, when it won’t be. So if we’re going to stay home, we need to do it LOUD.
Another scolding from a 9/11 Republican who really hasn’t grasped or is willing to support what Republicans have always stood for.
It is opined that the perfect should’nt be the enemy of the good and yet I can’t bring myself to vote for John McCain.
I have a long memory and still haven’t forgotten the Keating Five Scandal, McCain-Feingold, McCain Kennedy, The Gang of Fourteen, etc..
I am reminded of a passage from Mark.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
That is how I would feel about voting for John McCain.
Speaking as a former Fredneck,I believe there is no choice now except to vote for Ron Paul. By the time the election rolls around, our brave young men and women will already have achieved victory in Iraq and will be drawing down anyway.We need to concentrate on our domestic ills and Ron’s the man.
So we elect to office a human being who has had only one overriding principle “get elected” and then when this character gains his power and reverts to what he is, what do we do? How do we explain this perverted set of principals to a populace who entrusted our party with the highest office in the nation? Do we (yet again) leave our mouths agape and simply act shocked, shocked that this paragon of republican electability turns out to be exactly what he was in his past office?
We may not be able to afford a Clinton or Obama presidency with a Democrat majority Congress, but what will doom us in the eyes of the public is another president who ignores the principles he swore to us to uphold.
Our standards should not so easily blow in the wind. They should be an anchor, an opposite force we can use to right ourselves if we stray.
So do not be so quick to jump our case, Anchoress…we are just trying our damnedest to do the job conveniently described by your nickname that so few seem to be willing to do.
Maybe it is because of the long list of betrayals that some of us have determined that we refuse to vote to be betrayed again.
I wasn’t looking for Ronald Reagan. I wasn’t looking even for the perfect candidate. I was looking for a strong candidate that could be trusted to represent my ideas for this country. McAmnesty is not that man and I will not vote for him since he indeed betrayed conservatives only last summer.
Ho-hum… Yet another self-agrandizing-political-talking-head-nobody telling Americans how we all need to get over ourselves and follow her sage advice and continue to further dilute the Republican Party into the new Democrat-Lite Party by voting for any of the phonies the RINO Party has proffered up for us.
Sounds to me more like the Anchoress needs to get over herself than anything else.
No one is looking for another Ronald Reagan – that’s just the current BS the MSM is peddling.
What we want is a REAL CONSERVATIVE – not a Republican.
Paging John Bolton…
….or it might just be that no significant differences now exist among the choices and we are resolved to accept what crumb is left on the table.
Since when has changing your mind about an issue become against the law? I’m sick to death of hearing Reagan’s name and legacy invoked. I’ve also had enough of hearing how Fred Thompson was the only candidate who was consistently Conservative. He was incapable of arousing even an inkling of optimism in me. (Lets out a big yawn) At least Reagan was exciting to listen to. So let me get this straight, some repub’s will sit out the election and hand it over to secular progressive socialists because the candidates changed their minds or flip-flopped? What if that change of mind is sincere? How can you possibly know if you don’t give them a chance to prove it? You know exactly what Hillary will give you. That’s like being in a battle with the enemy storming the gate and you refuse to fight because you don’t like the general. I’ll vote for whoever the nominee is because I refuse to be a POW of a socialist regime.
Another scolding from a 9/11 Republican who really hasn’t grasped or is willing to support what Republicans have always stood for.
Always stood for? She just quoted Reagan on the border issue which was just about the opposite of what 2006 Republican are demanding. Yeah, Pat Buchanan was making the same demands at the 1992 Republican convention. Given the results of both 1992 and 2006, maybe Republicans should rethink that stance as it seems like a political loser.
Here’s Ed Meese in the ’86 bill:
“In the mid-80′s, many members of Congress – pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy – advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.”
“In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he[Reagan] decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened – in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.”
“Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.”
“Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.”
“America welcomes more immigrants than any other country. But in keeping open that door of opportunity, we also must uphold the rule of law and enhance a fair immigration process, as Ronald Reagan said, to “humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.”"
“the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.”
We know this isn’t about Reagan, or Thompson, or Mitt, or Rudy, or even Huckabee – it’s about McCain.
Another internet scold telling us to put aside our deep disgust with McCain for the good of the party.
Well I put the good of the people before the good of the GOP, and that’s why I’ll never vote for McCain.
Fred, I’ll miss you, buddy.
I wouldn’t take the job, personally.
Good news!
If either Shrillary or Obama bin Laden are elected to the Presidency, it will generate enough blowback by the 2nd year of the term that there will be a Republican House for sure and likely a Rebublican Senate.
Perhaps if congress remembered its duty, we should not have to depend so much on the current driven inividual who has sleeping rights in the White House. In any case, I can live with 2 years of Defeatocrat BS, as long as they are properly hobbled by mid-term.
Ok, so here’s my choices.
Elect another fiscal Liberal republican like Bush, who has raised domestic spending more than any president, and who gets Congressional republicans to support him for party reasons.
Or Elect another Clinton. Who wanted to raise spending, but got blocked and filibustered by Congressional Republicans (mostly the same ones) who weren’t willing to help a Democrat raise spending.
So, if you’re a fiscal Conservative, if you think Government is too big, and if you’d like Republicans in Congress to be more responsible?
Don’t elect a liberal Republican.
I’m not sure exactly which names you’re going to call me next, rather than realize the fact that from a historical perspective, Clinton raised domestic spending less than Bush… not because he wanted to, but because he couldn’t.
And bringing up the 1980′s immigration reform is odd. Wasn’t I promised that the 1980′s era immigration reform would solve the problem and we’d never face the problem again if we passed it?
So why do we need to do the same failed policy again?
But I hear you. I don’t have to fall in love, I just have to support big spending, illegal immigration, economic idiocy, abuse of the Constitution and/or nanny state government.
And in return I’ll get… what? A pat on the head?
WOOHOO, count me in. I’ll turn over all my principles in a heartbeat for a pat on the head. Even if I get nothing else… Thanks.
Now I’m enthused and motivated. I’m going to get a politician who will give me nothing I want, but I’ll get a pat on the head.
hooray
As a conservative, I’m looking for a Republican candidate that can lead with conservative principles. By definition, no politician will make me perfectly happy, but don’t tell me I have to put the Republican Party ahead of my principles.
The following excerpts are from “The Campaign Spot” on NRO wherein Jim Geraghty advocates that lying be a plank on the Republican Platform:
How Skeptical on Climate Change Can the GOP Be In 2008?
“I don’t buy into the global warming hype. But that doesn’t mean I want Republican candidates fighting an uphill battle, trying to convince the public that it’s all a hoax.”
“To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go into an election with the electorate you have, not the electorate you would like to have.”
“The independents and the centrists and the soccer moms and everybody whose vote is needed in the general election is already convinced that it’s happening.”
“Why are Republicans taking a more skeptical line on global warming than corporate America?”
“You can either try to win over the feelers, the emotion-centric folks who make up their minds in the final days before Election Day. Or you can concede them, by refusing to play that game, and by holding fast to principle and making your arguments in a manner that these voters tune out.”
So, Geraghty, and The Anchoress, think that elections aren’t about issues or principles. Elections are strictly about winning. Imagine, not wanting to educate the public about the issues that are the most important issues of the day. Simply tell the voters what they want to hear and then do whatever-the-hell you want once in office. Yeah boy, I’d follow that advice. Get your GOP 2008 Bumper Sticker -> “Losing…. It’s what Losers Do”
How can I vote for ANY Republican now that I know that their official policy is to tell me whatever it takes to get elected? Romney ran as a liberal Republican and won, he governed as a liberal Republican, he now claims to have seen the “right”. How can I believe Romney isn’t Arnold II, since Arnold has now “recanted” his conservative views? Clearly, National Review, who endorsed Romney, has an official policy of “anything to win the election” so what good is their recommendation?
Very nice column, and right on the money. What one needs to remember is that for all their bluster, the retards on the “true conservative right” (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Levin, etc.) represent merely a vocal minority of the Republican Party. Genghis Kahn himself probably wouldn’t be conservative enough to pass their list of “true conservative” litmus tests.
The great majority of Republicans are pragmaitic rather than ideological. They realize that in order to win the White House … if it can even be done after the last 8 years of the Bush administration’s arrogance and incompetence … the party is going to have to win a majority of the independents, who consitute 1/3 of the electorate. John McCain is the only candidate they have who can do that.
This nomination fight is going to boil down to a tug-of-war between the moderate wing of the GOP (McCain) and the hard-core ideologues on the far right (Romney). The irony of it all is that McCain has a lifetime rating of 82 from the American Conservative Union (which hardly qualifies as “liberal”) while Romney certainly can’t be classified as a “bedrock conservative” (although that’s Mitt’s latest attempt to “re-package” himself). If the moderates prevail and McCain is the nominee, the GOP actually has a pretty good shot at holding on to the presidency. But if the Neanderthals win and Romney is the candidate, they’re going down in flames in Nov. It will be the biggest Democratic electoral landslide since Goldwater was crushed by LBJ in 1964.
They can’t hear you Anchoress! They are locked into their little soundproof cells.
No one is good enough…..except…
So they call down their Saint and can not even acknowledge their twisted logic about him. I loved Reagan but what I have been hearing from the ‘new conservatives’, makes him unrecognizable to me. If the man had truly been as they are portraying him, I would never have liked him. It ain’t so.
You nailed the real Reagan. He had warts. He was a great man that made so many mistakes he would be painted as a devil today. Thank God he doesn’t have to witness what this base of purists have wrought.
Amen, Anchoress. Love the reference to the mythical NAU, especially.
NOTE to those who think McCain is her candidate and as inspired this piece: You’re wrong, but it should be obvious that she would vote for him in the general election. He’s simply the guy with a target on his back at the moment, but if Giuliani were the front-runner in nationwide polls, the same rioting would undoubtedly be occurring.
Re Thompson being the “one true conservative: Well, I was a Fredhead for a year until last week. “One true conservative” sounds like “No true Scotsman.” It’s just silly fallacy. Obviously everyone thinks their guy is the “best conservative,” but in the end, all are by anyone’s standards, compared with Hillobama.
Nobody’s saying you can’t support your favorite in the primary! Go for it! But the relentless character assassinations on other candidates are just jaw-dropping.
I have to wonder, is your support for Romney (or whomever else) so squishy, so unsure, that the best argument you can put forth is hatred for the other candidates? This is why I haven’t ever considered Romney my first or second choice–I never see the CAMPAIGN ITSELF or Romney supporters (with rare exception) on the internets ever saying why he’s the greatest thing since sliced (Wonder)bread. It is almost all about everyone else.
I could vote for Romney in the general with a clear conscience (although MittCare is a nightmare I don’t wish to experience), but I’m afraid Dan @ 11:40 is correct–”It will be the biggest Democratic electoral landslide since Goldwater was crushed by LBJ in 1964.”
No thanks.
Another reason I can’t support John McCain.
Juan Hernandez.
McCain doesn’t just have warts, he has a raging case of fatal amnesty.
Why would I put the guy in the White House just so that he can set the doors wide open?
You can’t win an election by pointing to the opposition and stating, well yes, I have my problems, but look at the other guy’s, they’ll really screw things up if they’re in charge.
And that is what John McCain is, not an inspiring leader, but the lesser of two incompetents.
You’re right about one thing: No candidate is worthy of my vote in this election.
I’m not supporting narcissistic, big-spending, “moderate” or pseudoconservative candidates. You will need to come up with something better than “At least I’m not Hillary” for a platform.
Let the more openly socialist party win the election. Let them run the country into the ground. I think it is necessary for that to happen before any meaningful change in attitudes toward economics comes about.
I am 36 years old. I have other things to do with my paycheck than buy prescription drugs for people on Medicare part D. I have other things to do with my paycheck than fund social security payments for people who did not save for retirement. I have other things to do with my paycheck than subsidize the ethanol scam.
I served in the US Army for over 12 years. I know the oath of enlistment by heart. Which part of support and defend the Consitution of the United States doesn’t the current crop of politicians understand? I don’t need attacks on the 1st Amendment (BCRA, ie, McCain – Feingold). I don’t need unconstitutional federal spending (go read the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers). Furthermore, I won’t vote for ANYBODY who wants to make American defense ultimately reliant upon the willful cooperation of other nations.
I would rather have Hillary and the proud-to-be-a-Bolshevik crowd than another RINO.
Didn’t you people learn ANYTHING from November 2006????
If either McCain or Huckabee is the nominee, I plan to walk into the voting booth and pull straight Democrat. If “Americans” want Socialism, I plan to make sure they get it “good and hard”. Maybe after enough living like Eastern Europeans in the 1950′s, they’ll be ready to be free again.
Rudyard Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings
“And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four -
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
* * * * *
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire -
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”
Well if it’s any consolation Mark, I didn’t know that I was serving to make America safe for illegal aliens to get in-state tuition and welfare benefits, either.
Anchoress, your views get my serious consideration even when I don’t agree.
“Didn’t you people learn ANYTHING from November 2006????” Yes I did and I’m learning it again this year. I learned that the “base” of the republican party isn’t really interested in governing this country they just want a party that allows them to rally at the evils of democratic policies without having to enact actual change.
A base that forgets that they aren’t the majority in this country. That governing takes persuasion and compromise; not threats and demands that only they know what is best for the country.
rabojabo, if you truly believe that our problems with islamic fanatics will be over at the end of the year, I submit that you haven’t done your homework. Ron Paul has advocated an isolationist policy. You probably haven’t noticed but Bush has been gradually pushing more or less friendly nations into stepping up to the plate. Did you read what five European NATO generals have said about nuclear first strikes? We need someone in office who will pick up foreign policy where it is and move it in the right direction, not someone promising cloud cuckoo land.
The Anchoress is not asking anyone to give up their convictions. As a regular reader of hers, I know that she welcomes reasonable debate. She likes people who make her think. She is simply not finding a lot of thought by certain circles. I personally think that solid arguments are better than temper tantrums in determining the candidate and influencing his direction. Use the blogosphere constructively to develop those arguments.
Keep in mind that we are involved in primary elections now. In the general we can make the pragmatic choice for the lesser of two evils. But now we should be seeking ideological purity. Or maybe the lessor of five evils?
“Speaking as a former Fredneck,I believe there is no choice now except to vote for Ron Paul.”
This is one of the purest examples of cognitive dissonance I have ever read in my life. Fred Thompson is the polar opposite of Ron Paul. He wanted to expand our military and pursue the War on Terror more than any candidate. Whoever wrote the above is a moron who does not deserve to vote.
Exactly how does a staunch Catholic go about voting for a pro abortionist?
I never viewed Fred Thompson as “resurrecting” anyone’s era.
Unless it would be the era of the middle to late 18th century, when the founding documents were elaborated.
I think those principles are in need of “resurrection”, but I’m not holding my breath.
Thank you Anchoress.
This woman is borrowing the reasoning used by contemporary religious denominations.
“The Bible is out of date, we need to update to get people into our churches and filling the coffers! The old members may have left in disgust, but the new mega-church is full of custome.., er, worshipers?”
The RINOs are simply abandoning the book of conservatism for a pandering doctrine to get more cash and votes. The new mega-party will attract more people with “pet-doctrines” like the Dems, but the faithful will leave in disgust.
The Republican party is so splintered, that no one person currently running will fit the bill.
I’m a Fredhead.
On February 5th he still gets my vote.