Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:24:37 PM
It's going to take four years of McCain or a liberal Democrat to wake us up, isn't?
We didn't learn from the Carter years, did we?
No, we didn't.
We had eight years of Ronald Reagan and then we elected George H. W. Bush, who turned out be a tad bit more moderate, but compared to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, well, he's still looking fairly conservative now.
And now, out of party loyalty, over conservative principles, we're seeing the tide head to McCain.
Why?
Simply put, it's his turn.
Among Republicans, President Bush still has a high approval rating. This despite not-so-conservative follies. Since it's called conservative, though, and is, in comparison to liberals, we're redefining conservatism, or we're associating it with hate mongering and demagoguery.
Since when was low taxes and small federal government demagoguery?
Since when was protecting the rights of the unborn, protecting traditional marriage, protecting our first and second amendment rights, hate mongering?
Only if you look at the world through the eyes of a liberal.
I've been advocating for the whittling process. It's happening through voting. Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and now Rudy Giuliani (though it's not yet official) have fallen out, leaving McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and yes, Ron Paul.
Garnering between 3-9% of the vote in most states, Paul's welcome to stay in. His constituency is less Republican and more Libertarian anyway, and it is nice to here some passion regarding small federal government, low taxes and so forth. Personally, I'm in favor of some radical movement when it comes to the federal government. We've been heading down the wrong road for a long time now and I'm wondering, when do we reach the point of no return? Have we already reached it.
Huckabee's persistence though can only be to keep drawing away votes from Romney, plain and simple. He can't expect to play and win in enough of the Super Tuesday states to have a chance at the nomination. He's going to do well in a few of the southern states, those that don't deliberately break for McCain. Huckabee won't have much appeal elsewhere.
He is only sticking around as a hindrance to Romney. Pure and simple. He has no money, he has no organization, other than the evangelical pastor network, and has only come in second once since Iowa. Otherwise, he's been third or fourth.
In contrast, Romney has come in first three times (Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming) and has come in second three times (Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa) and placed in fourth in South Carolina, where he did spend heavily, but also visibly withdrew the week leading up to the election. He might have been able to beat out Thompson for distant third had he stayed, and he might have siphoned some McCain votes, but in my mind, letting Huckabee win another big race would have only muddled the process more, and moved the party even farther away from the control of conservatives than it already is.
Huckabee doesn't have to go beyond Super Tuesday. If a significant number of people vote for him, and he only manages to come in third even, the damage will be done. While this may be a two man race, as long as he is there getting votes, it will only strengthen McCain.
And with Giuliani's expected endorsement of McCain to come with his resignation, well, not sure where that truly leaves Romney.
Unless there's more conservatives out there than I think there is.
Romney spent quite a bit of time trying to re-educate and then emphatically portray himself as the only Republican who would uphold all three coalition partners. Because of some past statements running for US Senate and then for governor, both in Massachusetts, arguably the bluest state in the union, he is mistrusted because he now says he's pro-life, pro-family and pro-gun.
Whereas McCain can desire to pass an amnesty bill, can pass campaign finance reform which actually does the opposite of what it was intended to do, and can vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, but by simply saying DURING the election after it's pounded into him that he has heard what the American people want--sorry, but that is WAY too trusting of a man who has cursed his friend and coddled his enemies, and has moved farther left each time.
I don't care if we do have buyer's remorse (getting Bush instead of McCain in 2000--in hindsight, it may have made more sense, as Bush was not overly conservative and McCain's shift towards the center has happened largely since 2001), McCain is not owed a thing by his party or by me. A debt of gratitude, yes. The presidency based on happenings of 30 years ago, no.
Apparently, though, I'm the minority.
We'll take our four years of Clinton, part II, Obama or McCain to wake up, won't we?