Conservative Cannibals Pushed Aside?
It may be an example of mass wishful thinking, but John McCain and hard-core conservatives seem to have taken a big step toward rapprochement.
In a speech draped with olive branches and punctuated by only a smattering of boos, the prohibitive favorite to win the Republican nomination told the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee that:
“We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won’t continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”
Jennifer Rubin, speaking for a goodly number of conservatives at Commentary.com, wrote that the speech was just what the doctor ordered:
“That take comes from the most loyal Romney supporters to a wide array of conservative voices. The ‘We’ll take Hillary’ view is clearly out of fashion. One speech a reconciliation does not make, but realistically there is only one way forward now for former McCain critics: Take credit and make the most of it.”
I’m not sure about the taking credit part because in the end conservatives not in the thrall of cannibals like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, James Dobson and other Malkintents knew that their failure to acknowledge McCain’s viability — and his failure to reciprocate — would mean likely defeat for the Republican Party in November.
The chances of McCain going down the tubes is still pretty good regardless of whether he tacks further to the right. Besides which, the conservatives’ core issues aren’t likely to play well enough this time around to make a difference. These issues include abortion, punitive action against illegal immigrants and standing with President Bush on the Iraq war.
All that so noted, there is some unfinished business for the CPAC crowd:
* How could a group that prides itself on ideological purity have bought so totally into Mitt Romney’s hollow declarations that he was one of them?
It was not just a matter of Romney not being McCain. The conservatives’ seduction as a result of the former Massachusetts governor’s charm offensive will go down as one of the biggest con jobs in political history.
* What to do with those conservative cannibals?
Limbaugh and Company will always have their followers, but their willfully destructive attacks against McCain reflect so poorly on the CPAC crowd and conservatives in general that it is beyond time for right-minded conservatives to begin dis-inviting more than Ann Coulter from their party.
I don’t expect these issues to be addressed and have no stake in that happening beyond my belief that we need two vibrant political parties. But sweeping them under the rug, which is what will happen, will just leave big lumps that conservatives will keep tripping over.
I’ll leave the second-to-last word to Ed Morrissey, my hands-down-favorite conservative blogger, who wrote:
“As I believe Georges Clemenceau once said, in order to get a seat at the feast, one has to help set the table. This is the choice facing conservatives. Either we help set the table and join in public policy and use our influence to help shape a Republican administration, or we abandon McCain and get four or eight years of statist policy that could take a generation to undo. Even worse, the conservatives might watch McCain get elected without their assistance — and watch themselves get marginalized as a movement for a very, very long time.
“Most of the people here at CPAC understand that choice very well. A few still do not. Fortunately — and this is Mitt Romney’s generous gift to the Republicans — the factional war has ended, and we can hope that the long run-up to the convention will give an opportunity for the visceral reactions to McCain’s nomination to fade. McCain can assist that by fulfilling his promise yesterday to bring more conservatives onto his campaign for counsel.”
The last word is a warning. If there is a common denominator in this extraordinary election year, it is that voters are thirsty for change. That makes Romney’s attack on the Democratic competition in his CPAC swan song all the more reprehensible:
“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Romney, of course, was playing to the basest part of the conservative base. That would be the people who got conservatives in big trouble in the first place.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “Conservative Cannibals Pushed Aside?”
McCain has almost no chance of winning since he has so little credibility on any winning issues. An Obama-McCain race will result in a Democratic rout and 60 (or more) Democrats in the Senate.
If McCain was pure on immigration then he could attack the Democrats on the voodoo socialism of increasing immigration while wanting to cut back on greenhouse gas emission. The only way to do it is to severely reduce the standard of living of the middle class.
Obama/Democrats want a the largest expansion of entitlements in over 50 years but also want to eliminate several industries from the U.S. How do they plan to do this.
Also, the Democrats want open borders and unlimited immigration but want average pay to grow faster than inflation. How do they reconcile this?
Barbarians? Cannibals? Savages? The slander continues [tm]…
It would help if things were described more accurately. “Conservative” issues are not limited to the narrow and inaccurate list starting this thread. For example, in the case of the war, not “standing with Bush” but avoiding the stupid, reptilian brain-stem-level-only instinctive urge to remove all our troops immediately, which is the cry of the naive to much worse anti-war crowd. It also means being aware and sane about the threat presented by Iran rather than engaging in stupid denial of that threat or misusing it to falsely accuse the USA rather than Iran of threats or of poor behavior.
Abortion? Most people don't want it prohibited, though normal people will tell you there is no absolute right to abortion whenever someone wants one, particuarly at government and taxpayer expense, least of all at federal government and taxpayer expense.
Conservative influences are needed when selecting future Supreme Court justices in order to continue to apply the brakes to the illegitimate judicial activism (creatively interpreting any legal document to “mean” what liberals want it to mean, especially if they cannot get the laws they want the legitimate ways, because they don't always win elections to influence the legislatures in this nation). The reaction to this illegitimate activism has been and remains an insistence on stopping this practice and replacing it with valid law and valid rule of law (due process rather than “due substance”), dishonestly referred to by liberals as “conservative judicial activism” [sic].
The truly base behavior and motives remain on the Left rather than the Right, as has been true in particular since the 1960s.
DLS- So what about the “judicial activism” that overruled the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, resulting in a 5-4 decision (broken down strictly by ideology) that handed the presidency to George Bush? Or aren't you counting THAT decision, lol???
As for Romney's statement, most Americans agreed with it; the Left and the Democratic Party are notorious for a legacy of being soft on crime, compounded by post-1960s radical US-hating elements in this country. This is hardly the most important issue affecting voters today; it ceased being so in the 1996 elections and is even less of an issue this year.
And the word is “terrorism,” not “terror” [sic]. Not only Romney but so many talking heads and other politicians engage in dumbed-down English. (They've even mis-pronounced: “terr'ists,” “terr'.”) Fortunately, for a change, Obama's deft handling of Romney's statement (with an elegant turn-around on Romney that really stuck and struck well) at least featured correct English. We need more of it from Democrats.
“That’s the kind of poorly thought through statement that led him to have to drop out. It’s a classic attempt to appeal to people’s fears that will not work in this campaign. And I think that’s part of the reason he was such an ineffective candidate. No Democrat has suggested that we surrender to terrorism. Democrats have suggested that we start withdrawing out of Iraq so we can focus our attention on terrorism. But, you know, it’s a classic example of trying to conflate the war against real enemies with the failed strategy of the Bush Administration in Iraq. … It’s those sort of glib statements that I think got Romney consistently in trouble in this race.”
K, I think instead about the blatantly political Florida supreme court. Naughty folks.
DLS and Kritt – Don't forget about the hypocrisy of both the Bush brothers and Terri Schiavo. Enacting a law for a single person and ignoring local jurisdiction was pandering and Conservative activism at its worse.
krit,
Are you proposing that the Democratic Congress repeal the 1964 voting rights act and let the states have complete control over voting? How very reactionary of you.
Rudi- I haven't forgotten conservatives' hypocrisy- or how Bush felt impelled to cut short his vacation to fly back to Washington in order to deal with the national “crisis”.
Of course he stayed in Crawford during Katrina- the real national crisis!
“Besides which, the conservatives’ core issues aren’t likely to play well enough this time around to make a difference. These issues include abortion, punitive action against illegal immigrants and standing with President Bush on the Iraq war.”
Similarly, the flip side position on these issues isn't likely to expand the left's control of the swing voter. Single issue campaign themes and one-off events are things that capitivate forum junkies, not mainstream voters. They are going to be measuring how well McCain seems to “handle things”, not so much “what would you have done about Terry Schiavo”. I think he did about as well as he could in the CPAC circumstances.
While I accept polls can be derided for their “choice without consequence” attribute, McCain is the single most “known quantity” in this election. The long term poll trends have shown him close a huge gap with both Clinton and Obama despite all his “knowns”. And that has been accomplished in a period when Clinton and Obama have had the luxury of not really being pressed to say “how” or “how much” relative to their policy positions.
Despite whatever distracting sideshow can be continued by the socons, an inpartial observer would certainly feel a “presumptive nominee” is currently ahead of “nominees in a dead heat”.
I think McCain is in a very good position right now.
“Don't forget about the hypocrisy of both the Bush brothers and Terri Schiavo.”
I haven't forgotten. It was a sad sop to the Religious Right. It's none of the federal government's business.
Conservatives need to decide if they believe in the states' rights to self-determination or if they want the Federal Govt interfering when it suits their purposes. Anything less is sheer hypocrisy.
SD What does the Voting Rights Act have to do with the 2000 election? Besides the fact that there was widespread voter suppression especially among black voters!
I also remember people like Jesse Jackson and others from the Religious Left down there supporting the family. But of course it's just the conservatives and Republicans people talk about.
“They are going to be measuring how well McCain seems to 'handle things', not so much 'what would you have done about Terry Schiavo'. I think he did about as well as he could in the CPAC circumstances.”
First, I was surprised and believe McCain did better than most people would have expected.
Second, I believe with most of us the basis for judgment lies between the most broad or general, and the single issues that yes, are a turnoff to most of us, all but those who have made single issues their personal crusades. Specifically in this election year, I don't doubt McCain's or Clinton's competence; we all know both are competent. I look at their politics and their histories to date. (Clinton's is sordid; McCain at times has been a Dem Lite, in theory should do much less harm and he should do well against Clinton if Clinton is nominated, the likeliest thing to happen, though most of us would be casting an anti-Clinton rather than a pro-McCain vote.) I do not know much about Obama's competence or history, but he seems to me to be at a minimum likely to be more adept than the current President and would be intrigued by who else he may bring with him into the Executive branch. I hope he at least gets nominated so as to ruin Clinton's chances for regaining the Presidency (officially, this time), ideally forever.
Many of us are moderate but hardly mushy, and many of us are swing voters (the best term to use rather than “moderate” or “centrist”). Regarding elections in the past and behavior in some states (reflecting the composition of the voters), some states are swing states or highly competitive and when things are undecided, they are of paramount importance. Ohio has proven to be especially “pivotal.” Keep this in mind given there is a debate there shortly and a very important primary there, arguably more important than Super Tuesday was.
In the following document you'll find all kinds of interesting information, including a “red-to-blue” description of how each state voted in 2006 (the USA overall was slightly Republican), the degree of how “pivotal” or influential (potentially or actually) the various states have been, and so on.
(The bluest state in 2006 was Massachusetts, at 25% bluer than “even” [magenta]; DC was 80% blue. The reddest state in 2006 was Utah, at 46% redder than “even.” Ohio was 2% net Republican but slightly Democratic of the USA vote overall. HIGHLY CONTESTIBLE in the general election.)
<a href=”http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=poli_honors”>http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewco…
“Anything less is sheer hypocrisy.”
Yep. We (even us mere non-liberals) don't want too large and intrusive a federal presence. And it's not right to socially engineer from DC by conservatives any more than it is by liberals just because we may not be as upset by the righties.
What I found most ironic about McCain's speech at CPAC was that, despite his attempt to pander to the GOP conservative base, Romney's dropping out was essentially the GOP saying “you'll vote for who we tell you to vote for”.
The entire point of Romney dropping out was to allow McCain to win the nomination withhout having to tack as far right as Republicans have had to in the recent past, thus setting him up for an easier transition to the general, more moderate election.
He smiled and said most of the right things, but the news of the day was that the conservative obviously didn't have the clout they thought they did.
Town Hall has good reader remarks attached to its columnists' works. There is as much fighting among GOP and GOP-leaning voters as there is among the Dem candidates and Dem and Dem-leaning voters. Are you a Clinton man or woman, or are you an Obama man or woman? Some communities could end up in a extended-family feud or civil war over this. The GOP pro- and anti-McCain factions, the victims versus the cannibals as Shaun would say, are tamer creatures. Still, they're fighting and they occasional get visited by gloating lib-Dems, which makes the Town Hall comments even more entertaining.)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnMcCain/2…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CliffMay/200…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaug…
[...] Conservative Cannibal s Pushed Aside? [...]
“Conservative influences are needed when selecting future Supreme Court justices in order to continue to apply the brakes to the illegitimate judicial activism (creatively interpreting any legal document to “mean” what liberals want it to mean, especially if they cannot get the laws they want the legitimate ways, because they don't always win elections to influence the legislatures in this nation).”
What about Bush interpreting the laws to give him teh right to torture people? Talk about twisted. For centuries civilized countries have considered waterbaording torture and banned it. The US even prosecuted Japanese and Germans for using it on US soldiers and the US even prosecuted its won soldiers who have used it in the past. And it's unconstitutional- the constitution bans cruel punishment.
Which is worse, liberal judges interpreting laws for liberal positions (i.e. allowing gays to adopt and have equal rights as straight people) or the conservatives who scream that it is fine to trample our constitution and torture people which does not yield results? Can't the US get its priorities right?
BTW: DLS, you made comments over the past couple of days about pulling out fo Iraq precipitously. I agree with you- we can't just yank our troops out. And Obama and Hillary have both said they understand the need to be careful in pulling out our troops. I don't nkow what sort of timetable you have for gettnig the troops out (or if you think Obama and Hillary would pull them out too quickly). But it seems like the options for withdrawing the troops are: pull them out within about a year (that's more or less the Obama/Clinton timetable) or keep them in Iraq indefinitely (McCain is for keeping them in for 100 years). I'd like to know just what the troops are accompishing at the expense of their lives and our treasury. Is it worth it for American citizens to continue to die (and possibly for decades)? If so, then why not commit troops to lessen the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians so they have some political breathing room to negotiate a peace settlement?
McCain actually has been amazingly lucky. He has raised no money to speak of, has many enemies in the party ranks, and has taken many stands that are unpopular with conservatives. He received a honeymoon from the media, and was able to pull out moderates and independent votes, while Romney was forced to split the social cons with Huckabee.
He further lucked out when the Democrats were evenly split after Super Tuesday, and he emerged the frontrunner. This means he won't have to battle primary opponents, but can consolidate his support to make a run in the general. Obama and Hillary can waste the rest of their campaign funds on each other— and the Dems may come out deeply divided after their convention. McCain is a very lucky guy.
Jesse Jackson was also pandering, but he isn't with the states rights party. Since when is a probate/family issue a federal matter? The Schiavo case showed the Bush's family disregard for “rule of law” over a political opportunity and mining votes.